Oreo's Law - Dog Lovers Please Read

[chell]

Oreo's Law will soon be up for vote in NY. Pet's Alive has tons of information on this law and Oreo.

Oreo was mistreated and abused by her so-called owner who threw her off the roof of a 6-story building. A little over a year later while at the ASPCA she was deemed "too dangerous to live." Pet's Alive had asked that the ASPCA turn her over to them and they would assume all legal responsibility. They wanted to work with her on any aggression and any other issues she had. Of course she had issues after being abused!

The ASPCA had issues with turning her over to Pet's Alive. To make a long story short this law is to help protect animals like Oreo. This law would protect them and help rescue groups like Pet's Alive to have the ability to be able to rescue other animals like Oreo. If an animal is scheduled to be put to sleep and another rescue wants the animal and believes they can work with them to bring out the loving animal they really are then they can have the animal.

I know there are many issues here and many people are afraid of of pit bulls but please remember THAT is not the issue here. The issue here is to save the life of mistreated and abused animals. They deserve a second chance at a normal, loving life. They deserve to be loved no matter what breed they are. Please don't look at the fact that Oreo was a pit bull and be afraid or angry. She could have been any breed. Right now the breed isn't important. The fact that the ASPCA didn't want to turn her over to people willing to work with her and put the extra effort into rehabilitating her is the issue.

Thank you!

 

[LadyZolt]

I see what you're saying, but what if the dog is deemed aggressive, goes to Pets Alive or a similar organization and then one day gets out by accident and hurts (or worse) a child? Or even an adult for that matter? The people who abused the animal should be in prison -- I think harsher penalties for pet abuse are a good solution -- but animals are animals and you cannot know for sure that they will not react to something that their trainers are completely unaware of, yet the dog has conditioned a response. I think that's the problem. The ASPCA doesn't want to have to be sued by someone because they allowed a dog they knew to be dangerous to leave their control.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

 

[chell]

I see what you're saying, but what if the dog is deemed aggressive, goes to Pets Alive or a similar organization and then one day gets out by accident and hurts (or worse) a child? Or even an adult for that matter? The people who abused the animal should be in prison -- I think harsher penalties for pet abuse are a good solution -- but animals are animals and you cannot know for sure that they will not react to something that their trainers are completely unaware of, yet the dog has conditioned a response. I think that's the problem. The ASPCA doesn't want to have to be sued by someone because they allowed a dog they knew to be dangerous to leave their control.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

Pet's Alive would NEVER adopt out a dog until they are COMPLETELY comfortable with it. They would work with the dog as long as it takes. If the dog wouldn't be adoptable they would go from there, but they wouldn't put it down. It would still get to live on the sanctuary, not in a tiny cage.

In Oreo's case there were people who worked with her who said she wasn't aggressive like the ASPCA is saying she was.

Of course we need to punish the people who do these horrible things. But these animals need protection too. They can't speak for themselves. Just because she was abused doesn't mean she is going to be aggressive.

 

[C.Ann]

Not quite sure how I feel about this one.. Some animals that have been mistreated and/or abused just can't be rehabilitated - the same as some humans can't.. Throw in the aggressiveness that is common in certain breeds and I'm not sure what the right solution is..

I guess the only thing that I know for certain is that I would never adopt a dog who was once known to be aggressive - even if the dog had been deemed rehabilitated.. The risk is too high - especially if it is going into a situation where it is going to be around children.. Of course this is just my own personal opinion.. I'm sure others may feel differently..

 

[chell]

Not quite sure how I feel about this one.. Some animals that have been mistreated and/or abused just can't be rehabilitated - the same as some humans can't.. Throw in the aggressiveness that is common in certain breeds and I'm not sure what the right solution is..

I guess the only thing that I know for certain is that I would never adopt a dog who was once known to be aggressive - even if the dog had been deemed rehabilitated.. The risk is too high - especially if it is going into a situation where it is going to be around children.. Of course this is just my own personal opinion.. I'm sure others may feel differently..

The aggression isn't the issue here. The issue is that when another group can take the dog they should turn it over instead of killing it. The ASPCA tried to use aggression as an excuse here. I can't tell you if Oreo had issues or not since I was never around her. All I can say is that these animals should at least be given a chance by the rescue groups who have time and people dedicated to them to see if they really are adoptable or not.

This can happen to a sweet, very mild dog with zero aggression. What I said in my first post was one example. I just think they need a chance to go to a rescue group that can take the time to really work with them and get a good feel for them to see if they are adoptable or not.

 

[simba928]

I don't really know enough about the case to comment too much on it but I am so glad you pointed out that her breed doesn't matter. I do think, though, that if a LEGITIMATE and REPUTABLE rescue want to take on a dog then they should be allowed to do that provided they assume ALL responsibility for the care and legal concerns of that dog. The key, though, is that the rescue has to be legitimate and reputable. There needs to be some kind of way to distinguish that rather than saying any rescue can take the dog in order for that law to really get my support. There are a lot of rescues that are not good at all, especially pit rescues. Where I live, there was a woman that claimed to be a cat rescuer and she ended up with hundreds of cats that were not well taken care. It was basically a hoarding situation under the disguise of a cat rescue.

Pit bulls are AWESOME dogs. It's the people that cause the issues. Pits used to be the equivalent to our golden retrievers or labs. They were family dogs, basically the nannies for little kids. They are great with kids due to their extremely high pain tolerance. A little kid can be a little kid around them and pull their ears and tail and sit on them and the dog will just love it up! To them, it will be "YAY!!! I get attention!!!" They are consistently listed at the top of the best family dogs. They are rated higher than goldens, labs, beagles, and other dogs that are perceived to be great family dogs. They are extremely loyal dogs and love people. All the pits I have dealt with have been giant lap dogs!

The thing that concerns me, though, is that being in a shelter is a HUGE trauma for a dog. I'm assuming that for that year before the dog was euthanized she was sitting in a shelter. Good shelters do as much as they can for their dogs, but there is only so much they can do. While the trial was going on, they may not have been able to handle the dog as much as they should have. When dogs are in cages for so long, they tend to go cage crazy. Think about it, if you were sitting in a cage all day every day for a year, how would you be at the end of that? She probably wasn't socialized as much as she should have been while there. She probably wasn't handled as much as she should have been. And this is by no fault of the shelter. There are so many animals that go through a shelter and so much to do that it is impossible to give a dog like that the amount of handling and attentioon they need.

 

[C.Ann]

take on a dog then they should be allowed to do that provided they assume ALL responsibility for the care and legal concerns of that dog. The key, though, is that the rescue has to be legitimate and reputable. There needs to be some kind of way to distinguish that rather than saying any rescue can take the dog in order for that law to really get my support. There are a lot of rescues that are not good at all, especially pit rescues..

Also - when and if one of these dogs became adoptable - there would need to be FULL disclosure of all "past" aggressive behavior; the fact that the dog had been mistreated; and possibly even some liability on the part of the rescue group if they placed a dog in a good home - only to have that dog become a danger to others because it was not totally rehabilitated as claimed..

 

[chell]

Yes, Simba928 I agree that they have to be legitimate. We recently rescued a pit that was neglected and abused. The family she is with now says she is the best dog ever. She is so loving and kind. Most people didn't want her simply because she was a pit. We didn't take her to the pound just because we knew they would put her down. All of the no-kill shelters were full.

Sorry to get side tracked. Thank you for your post and that someone understands what I'm trying to get across.

 

[chell]

Also - when and if one of these dogs became adoptable - there would need to be FULL disclosure of all "past" aggressive behavior; the fact that the dog had been mistreated; and possibly even some liability on the part of the rescue group if they placed a dog in a good home - only to have that dog become a danger to others because it was not totally rehabilitated as claimed..

With places like Pet's Alive I'm sure people would get this. I would think they have to tell you that anyway.

Even if a dog isn't adoptable Pet's Alive lets it live with other animals (if it is safe to do so) instead of keeping it cooped up in a small cage. At least it gets a shot at a somewhat normal life.

I'm thinking I need to change my original post because it seems like the aggression seems to be the main focus and it isn't. That was only an example.

 

[bunkkinsmom]

Interesting thread. I will tell you that I would not adopt a dog that had at any point been deemed aggressive. Because I do have children. If I did not, it would not be as significant in my decision making process.

Example: My DBIL has a dog that is deemed an "aggressive breed". Now, the biggest dog he has ever owned before this was a Pomeranian. In fact, when he lived with us for a brief stint, he had no idea how to react to or handle our German Shepherd. And yet he feels ok to have this pup around my kids. Pup is a key word.

I am not worried about the dog because she is an "aggressive breed", I worry about her because she is high strung, young, and not used to being around kids. Also, my kids are VERY comfortable around our dog and I will not allow them to be that comfortable around his. This makes for a bit of tension, but frankly better safe than sorry. My kids should know that they can't treat all dogs like they treat ours or there will be consequences. Do I really expect the dog to understand that it can't treat kids the same as adults or there will be consequences? A young dog?

I am glad there are organizations that will care for these dogs, but I would not adopt one, IMHO.

 

[chell]

Thank you for the input Bunkkinsmom. I just want people to consider supporting the law so that these animals can have a chance at living. As I've said and I think I'll have to keep saying, they may not all be aggressive.

 

[bunkkinsmom]

Hey Chell, by the way, we're neighbors! Where are you in NC?

 

[simba928]

Yes, Simba928 I agree that they have to be legitimate. We recently rescued a pit that was neglected and abused. The family she is with now says she is the best dog ever. She is so loving and kind. Most people didn't want her simply because she was a pit. We didn't take her to the pound just because we knew they would put her down. All of the no-kill shelters were full.

Sorry to get side tracked. Thank you for your post and that someone understands what I'm trying to get across.

That's great that you rescued her! Please don't give "pounds" and "non no-kill shelter" a bad name, though. We do the best we can. Pits are hard dogs to adopt out because of their reputation. Not only do we have to take into consideration the actual adopters (like we do for all dogs), but we have to think about neighbors. People complain that we let their neighbor adopt a pit, regardless of how friendly the dog is, which is extremely unfortunate. Not only do people not want pits, but it is hard for the people that do want a pit to adopt them.

And abuse/neglect doesn't necessarily make for a mean animal. I've seen dogs that were horribly abused/neglected but were the friendliest dogs I have ever seen. We had one pit come to us that had been horribly neglected. He weighed about half of what he should have and was left tied out in the backyard, literally just waiting to die. He was neutered and I went into the cage with him to hold his food (he couldn't get to it due to the E-collar). He had no interest in the food, he was more concerned with getting as close to me as he could. He was one of the most loving dogs I have ever seen. He waited for a few months (because he was a pit, not because of his temperament or personality or anything other than his breed) before he was adopted by a great family.

And as an aside, I don't think Chell is asking anybody here to adopt these dogs. I think she is just asking for these dogs to be able to be given a chance. If some group wants to give these animals a shot at an actual family (whether it be with the rescue group or in a home), then they should be able to provided they have the resources to do that.

 

[CathrynRose]

And as an aside, I don't think Chell is asking anybody here to adopt these dogs. I think she is just asking for these dogs to be able to be given a chance. If some group wants to give these animals a shot at an actual family (whether it be with the rescue group or in a home), then they should be able to provided they have the resources to do that.

 

[chell]

That's great that you rescued her! Please don't give "pounds" and "non no-kill shelter" a bad name, though. We do the best we can. Pits are hard dogs to adopt out because of their reputation. Not only do we have to take into consideration the actual adopters (like we do for all dogs), but we have to think about neighbors. People complain that we let their neighbor adopt a pit, regardless of how friendly the dog is, which is extremely unfortunate. Not only do people not want pits, but it is hard for the people that do want a pit to adopt them.

And abuse/neglect doesn't necessarily make for a mean animal. I've seen dogs that were horribly abused/neglected but were the friendliest dogs I have ever seen. We had one pit come to us that had been horribly neglected. He weighed about half of what he should have and was left tied out in the backyard, literally just waiting to die. He was neutered and I went into the cage with him to hold his food (he couldn't get to it due to the E-collar). He had no interest in the food, he was more concerned with getting as close to me as he could. He was one of the most loving dogs I have ever seen. He waited for a few months (because he was a pit, not because of his temperament or personality or anything other than his breed) before he was adopted by a great family.

And as an aside, I don't think Chell is asking anybody here to adopt these dogs. I think she is just asking for these dogs to be able to be given a chance. If some group wants to give these animals a shot at an actual family (whether it be with the rescue group or in a home), then they should be able to provided they have the resources to do that.

Oh no, I'm not trying to give them a bad name. Sorry if it came across that way. But where I live they sadly put all pits down as soon as they come in. I really think all of you do an awesome job and I appreciate all you do!

Yes, you did sum up what I've been trying to say. Thank you! I'm just not good with words.

 

[chell]

Hey Chell, by the way, we're neighbors! Where are you in NC?

Hey! I'm in Hickory. You?

 

[snarlingcoyote]

It sounds like Pets Alive is using the model that was used in San Fran a decade back. Which WORKED, btw. For several years SF was no-kill. All that Pets Alive wants is a law the guarantees that a reputable shelter can and will get any dog on death row that they can feasibly take. This same fight has happened in other cities.

The truth is that I just don't get this one. . .a shelter with good facilities wants a dog but animal control refuses to let the shelter take the dog because of behavioral or breed issues.

Nathan Winograd points out in his book Redemption (give it a shot if you're at all interested in the No Kill movement and how it can work practically) that he once had an animal behavioral expert in to test several dogs his organization was going to adopt out. The expert said that several shouldn't be adopted out (i.e. put down). Winograd and his crew thanked the expert for coming and worked with all of the dogs and adopted them out. They did follow ups with all the families at regular intervals. NONE of the dogs the expert said were unadoptable had issues in their new families and adjusted to their families well. A couple or three of the dogs that the expert said were adoptable DID have issues. (60% if I remember correctly.)

While I don't see that as a very scientific study, the methods used to determine "suitability" for a lot of dogs isn't very scientific either, so I'll leave it at that description and let people draw their own conclusions.

I dunno, I think maybe animal control folks get so innundated and overwhelmed sometimes that they don't believe that the no-kill paradigm can work and are worried things will somehow end up worse than pre-no-kill. The thing is, it's been proven to work, and it is working in rich towns, poor towns, urban areas, rural areas, cold climates, warm climates.

I think it will take time, effort, and legislation.

 

[bunkkinsmom]

Hey! I'm in Hickory. You?

Greensboro

And by the way, I think you are great with words! And I am glad that there are people out there that can care for these dogs!

 

[Minnie&Nana]

Greensboro

And by the way, I think you are great with words! And I am glad that there are people out there that can care for these dogs!

I'm in G'boro too!! We need to arrange a DIS Meet! know 2 other North Carolinians who would love a Dis Meet!

Chell, thank you for posting the link - I support several rescues and wholeheartedly believe every furbaby deserves a chance and those who harm them belong in jail - including those who run puppy mills, some of the most unimaginable horrific abuse.

 

[golfgal]

Yes, Simba928 I agree that they have to be legitimate. We recently rescued a pit that was neglected and abused. The family she is with now says she is the best dog ever. She is so loving and kind. Most people didn't want her simply because she was a pit. We didn't take her to the pound just because we knew they would put her down. All of the no-kill shelters were full.

Sorry to get side tracked. Thank you for your post and that someone understands what I'm trying to get across.

When I was in high school we rescued a Pit before anyone really even knew what they were. She was the best dog, very lovable, well trained, obedient right up to the time when out of the blue she tried to attack my step-mom. Fortunately my step-mom was able to get herself into another room and shut the door but she had to call the police who had to shoot the dog. Sorry, they are DOGS, you can't reason with them nor can you counsel them about their past abuse. You never know what might set them off, especially with little kids that might not always be the most gentle with dogs.