1 2 3
spayed/neutered dogs. That talks to them. I also have trouble with this all being pinned on Sue. There are plenty ... little more reasoned decision? I don't think Sue is out there breeding all these surplus dogs. I know I'm not.

No, you're not breeding dogs. You're murdering them.

Because you get paid to murder them, and so does the organization(s) you work for.
It's a fee for hire thing. Stop blaming other people for the dogs you murder.
thank you.
rpdb heelper
I agree that her people skills and tact leave something to be desired.

I actually appreciate someone who is up front about her feelings and respect that she doesn't sugar-coat things. It isn't the delivery, it's the attitudes that are very clearly conveyed that I find disturbing.

I also have trouble with this all being pinned on Sue.

I don't think anyone is pinning "all this" on Sue. We happen to be discussing a movie that features her. This could become a wider discussion about temperament testing in general, but up til now it hasn't been. I only discussed Sue because she is the subject of discussion.

If folks would
rather we just close our eyes and randomly pick the dogs to be put to sleep, I can understand their ire in some weird way.
Again, no one said this and setting up straw men does not help.

Sue draws the line at a certain place. Maybe you do too. I think an argument can be made that it could be drawn at a slightly different place without necessarily arguing that this means "randomly picking the dogs to be put to sleep."

Melanie Lee Chang > Form ever follows function. Departments of Anthropology and Biology >
University of Pennsylvania > Louis Sullivan (Email Removed) >
I don't think anyone is pinning "all this" on Sue. We happen to be discussing a movie that features her. ... in general, but up til now it hasn't been. I only discussed Sue because she is the subject of discussion.

I'm afraid I'm bringing the outside world to this conversation. Sue has gotten death threats, Cynthia, the director has gotten death threats. There is an active hate SS list on the web. So, I'm not just dealing with Usenet perspective. Sorry.
Sue draws the line at a certain place. Maybe you do too. I think an argument can be made that it could be drawn at a slightly different place without necessarily arguing that this means "randomly picking the dogs to be put to sleep."

We draw the line at different places, not a fixed point, but the first thing we have to know is who are adopters are, what they have the capacity to deal with, what they want in a dog. We put dogs up for adoption that require more skill and committement and we offer them free consultations and we talk with them every month for 6 months following the adoption. This is the minumum - we often get more involved.
Sternberg's argument that, essentially, the only dogs that should be adopted out are Gund-like creatures with virtually no natural canid-like behaviors. Dogs who are easy. Dogs suitable for people who really can't handle having a dog,

BINGO. I don't want dogs like that, and I'm not that sort of an owners. If Sternberg has her way, people like me- dedicated dog owners, who want REAL dogs, not stuffed animals- will be forced to look elsewhere for our dogs. If the sort of dog I was looking for had not been at the SPCA the two times I went there, I WOULD have gone somewhere else- either to breed rescue, to a private adoption, or to a different rescue organization.
Sternberg's argument that, essentially, the only dogs that should ... suitable for people who really can't handle having a dog,

BINGO. I don't want dogs like that, and I'm not that sort of an owners.If Sternberg has her way, people ... I WOULD have gone somewhere else- either to breed rescue, to a private adoption, or to a different rescue organization.[/nq]But Sarah, the majority of people who go to animal shelters looking to adopt aren't people like you, me, Diane B. or any other dog enthusiast. They are your run-of-the-mill family with small kids, no basic training knowledge, ideas like rub-his-nose-in-it & hit-him-with-a-newspaper, intentions to let the dog inside only as long as its "good" (read that as doesn't chew, is housebroken, doesn't shed overly much), and will provide amusement for the kids.

That's the generic, widespread mindset of shelter adopters. Since that's the case (I have no data to cite, only what I know from the shelters I've worked with), it certainly does make sense to pander to the desires of these types of homes because the likelihood of the dog/adopter making a lifetime success of the adoption is higher. Sure there are people looking for a dog who needs work, a dog who is misunderstood, a dog who may have good agility qualities, etc.

but they're not the majority.

Tara
If the sort of dog I was looking for had not been at the SPCA the two times I went there, I WOULD have gone somewhere else- either to breed rescue, to a private adoption, or to a different rescue organization.

So why would it have been any worse if you got a surplus dog from a private adoption or another rescue organization? The fact is the dog you wanted is out there - and probably a few hundred thousand more if you want them.
And if they are looking for a challenge, they certainly need not find it in this shelter or that.
The newspapers are full of them, check those "free to good home" ads.. there are three BCs in today's paper alone.
I am getting a purebred BC *** foster (8 weeks old!) because she had a horrible case of fleas and lost coat... her obviously less than average owner dumped her in the shelter and because she looks "mangy", their "average" adopters won't consider her!
Here she is *** purebred, eight weeks old, and female*** (the three charms in rescue placement) and she's been at the shelter over her time now and unadopted..
The rescues are full of them, and turning down owner surrenders every day because there are so few people willing to actually haul their butts into the trenches and DO something.
How are shelters temperament testing dogs to suit the average family going to stop someone from finding a dog that isn't average? I just don't get this.

Call me any day of the week, I can ship you several that desperately need a home..
No, there will never be a shortage of "needs experienced owner" dogs for the tiny fraction of adoptive homes out there actually looking for such.

This reminds me of the last "dump" email I got... This nice lady had a seven year old male, that she loves very much, of course! That attacks her other dog.. so if he only had a home with someone experienced in dealing with problem dogs, where he could be an only dog, she just knows all his problems would be cured..
Like someone that actually fits that description doesn't already have their plate full of dogs just like him! And she's "willing to let him go" in a single dog adoption.. because she doesn't want the liability. It's a fantasy world that these people are living in... and they aren't necessarily horrible or irresponsible, they just have no freaking clue.

Sheesh.
Robin
She identifies dogs as "biters" by tormenting them until they're pushed into snapping at an inanimate object. None of my ... with a plastic hand on a stick while they're trying to eat, they might very well eventually snap at it.

Jesus, any Basenji she ever gets is probably toast.

-Andrea Stone
Saorsa Basenjis
http://home1.gte.net/res0s12z/
The Trolls Nest - greenmen, goblins & gargoyle wall art www.trollsnest.com
Jesus, any Basenji she ever gets is probably toast.

Actually, I think you could probably work out an arrangement with her.

One where she would send direct to your* doorstep *allthe Basenji's she ever comes across. Emotion: smile

Handsome "Jack" Morrison
*gently remove the detonator to reply via e-mail
Luvya Dubya!
http://www.georgewbush.com /
Show more