If all dogs in homes had quality of life I might agree with you Megan but I know many dogs near here that if they went to the dog's trust would regard it as heaven. Yes they are fed & housed but thats it.Know of one dog who had not been off the 7th floor of a tower block, but even with the new act the owners can not be procecuted as their dog has the minimum requirements. Many pet dogs are not fussed not walked & are regarded as status symbols or guards or fashion accasseries & don't even get the attention those at the trust do.

I see what your saying SUE and do agree. There are those dogs already in homes that don't get the level of life they deserve. My post was in relation to dogs in rescue kennels. It's a difficult decision to make and although I'm not even happy with some rescues putting dogs down after 7 days as it is (at some rescues) open to abuse. With some they select the long timers or those they assess hard to rehome and put them to sleep so to kennel the dogs that have a better chance of rehoming. It's a hard choice. If the rescues are drowning with dogs though, what other choice do they have
In terms of the OP if a dog is assessed to be too much of a risk and all avenues have been looked down. I think it is kinder to the dog but also the responsible thing to do to PTS in the case of the rescue.

This is something I feel very strongly about........
me feel strongly about something when have I ever been opinionated

However it's something I'll have to come back to, but in the meantime I'd be interested to know your thoughts on George http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php?t=62075 He has bitten before and in the wrong hands would do so again. Do you think he should be PTS'd?

This is a hard call really depends on the circumstances why the dog has bitten or is aggressive, but if it means dogs are left kennelled for the rest of their lives because they cannot be found a 'safe house' then I think they should be pts in certain cases it can just prolong the misery for them especially with dogs that get kennel stress it's awful to see dogs kept like that.

Three of my five rescues are ex-biters.
They bit humans because of vile and vicious abuse in their previous existances [ can`t say previous lives, they werent living, they were merely existing in abuse ridden hells ].

I do not believe dogs which have bitten should be killed like a piece of rubbish because of human failure. No dog bites for no reason - ever. We might not always fathom the reason there and then but a reason there will be nonetheless.

When humans are the cause, [ other than medical, whether from mistreatment or lack of understanding of a dogs personality its usually humans at fault, lets face it ], I believe humans have a duty to help such dogs, and at the very least have a duty of care to find out if the cause was medical then to enable that dog to have whatevers necessary to right a treatable medical cause.

The only cases which I believe are ethically right to put an aggressive dog down are those where an untreatable terminal health condition is causing aggression because such a dog is likely facing increasing confusion, distress and possibly pain with no hope of improvement to quality of life for that dog.

But some dogs do bite for no reason sadly. I agree that the vast majority of aggressive dogs are so because of their owners. However, there simply is not enough homes for these kinds of dogs, and in todays climate, with dangerous dogs hype and hysteria at the moment then rescue centres are going to have to be a lot more selective and those who cannot be found suitable homes in a reasonable period should be humanely PTS.
I can only imagine the problems we woul dhave if every single dog that was no longer wanted had to be kept alive.
I just wish we could stop people from breeding willy nilly.
Becky

but that's the point, they never "destroy a healthy dog"

there are different ways to describe "healthy"

also, technically, a rescue does not have a non-euthanasia policy all the time they operate a selection policy.

I have to agrre with Ramble on this one. Dog on dog aggression, NO WAY ! They can definately be managed! With human aggression each case has to be taken on it's on merits. As with George:

George had a bad start from the beginning ! Anyone who decides to own a Rottie needs to fully comprehend what they will turn into, and that's very big, strong willed dog. They need firm training from the off. Without fully knowing the details I would say George was only doing what he 'thought' he needed too. And therefore it's not his fault as such, but the fault of the ignorant owners who never put the time in to train him.

I think we all agree that in most (if not all) cases, it's human error that has caused the problem. But in answer to the OP, I believe that if all has been done to turn it around and there is still little chance of the dog being rehomed then it's probably kinder to have it PTS. Obviously each case would have to be looked at on it's own merits.

I can`t agree with that. Just because the reason might not be obvious does`nt mean it does`nt exist, its down to us to figure it out.
In most cases of `no visible reason` its going to be a health issue, most commonly thyroid imbalance [ very easily treatable ], and probably next in frequency would be undetected siezures which can be anything from a momentary `blankness` lasting a fraction of a second to full blown fitting, any degree of which may lead to enough disorientation to lead to a bite but often highly treatable once diagnosed.
**After those would probably most commonly be un-noticed injuries like bruises, soreness, dental pain, all sorts of easily missed things which can cause a dog to strike out in uncharacteristic manner

One case was mentioned recently of a dog biting a child for `absolutely no reason`, he `just turned`. After being destroyed, iirc a crayon was found to have been pushed in to the poor dogs ear canal which must have been agony...
If only he had been checked over first, poor dog

In cases where [treatable ] health issues are the cause, there should be no need whatsoever for affected dogs to end up in rescue or destroyed when a simple course of medical treatment is all thats needed for them.

That and introducing compulsory courses preceeding pet ownership would make the two biggest differences imo but I can`t see politicians having the sense to do the right thing on those scores