News, ideas & inspiration from industry leaders
“It’s Just Not Supposed To Happen This Way”
July 13, 2024, Dr. Emily Weiss
Dr. Weiss details the compounding losses that occurred when one shelter adopted out a dog with behavioral concerns.
Sarah and Max, my friend’s daughter and her boyfriend, are dream dog parents. Last summer they made the decision to adopt their first dog, and spent months researching everything from nutrition and how to set up their home for success to training and breed types. They were interested in adopting a young, social, big dog, and came to me for advice on where to adopt. They really did not care about the breed; it was just most important that they took home a safe dog whom they could love for years.
They adopted Buddy and were over the moon. I mean you guys – like seriously over the moon!
And then their hearts completely broke…
After about three weeks in the home, Buddy bit Sarah’s brother. The incident took place near the entry of the home – a significant bite, shake, and hold. Sarah’s brother was badly bruised and very scared, but luckily was wearing a heavy coat and was otherwise fine.
The shelter that Sarah and Max adopted from is a big, relatively well-resourced facility. The shelter’s behavioral observations about Buddy indicated he had very significant “barrier reactivity,” and had growled at kennel staff entering his run when he had a chew. It also noted he exhibited some fear behaviors.
But this information was not communicated clearly or fully to them, and they were not provided support. They had trusted that the shelter had done their best to send them home with a safe dog.
The behaviors Buddy displayed in shelter might indicate some serious aggression potential, but *may* also indicate a young, aroused, undersocialized dog who is showing shelter stress-related behaviors that may disappear in the home with the right support. When it came to Buddy, the behaviors didn’t disappear, nor was the family given the proper information or support to have attempted to manage him safely.
After the bite, Sarah and Max dug right in and researched their options, and had some very hard decisions to make.
Below is the note that Sarah and Max sent to their family and close friends. It is a gut- wrenching letter of heartbreak and loss – and excellent food for thought as to how we approach the hard questions.
Friends and family,
We will be bringing Buddy back to the shelter that we adopted him from. The shelter explained to us that based on the bite and also his larger size, the risk is just too high to re-adopt him. In looking into other options for Buddy (like perhaps bringing him to a different shelter that wouldn’t put him down), we found that this was not fair to anyone, including Buddy, who could end up suffering by languishing in a rescue forever or hurting someone else. Re-evaluating Buddy’s fit in our family while knowing this outcome – nothing could have prepared us for this.
Though Buddy has shown us nothing but unconditional love, the stress of not knowing when Buddy may bite someone again is heavy and very real.
I could go on and on, but really there is just no part of us that wants to do this today. So much that I felt physically ill before going to sleep last night. It’s just not supposed to happen this way, after finally bringing home your first dog. It was all such a high and now we are facing the lowest of lows of having to say good-bye. But we have to think about our family and friends (which includes all of you and your families/friends). We have to think about the next ten years (and not just the next few months to “get through”). We have to think rather selfishly (which has been absolutely awful), of the reality of our own lifestyle and of the type of dog we want to have in our home, lives, and family.
This is the last thing we expected and the last thing we wanted. We’ll never know if we made the right decision. We’ll never know any of the hundreds of “what ifs” that have crossed our mind over the past couple of weeks, the bad “what ifs” and the good ones, too.
We would politely ask that opinions on our decision are kept to yourselves. Trust us, if you’re thinking it, we’ve already thought about it ten times. We are, however, asking for your support, patience, and love.
Please go hug your doggies. Give them treats and kisses. We’ll be wishing we could do the same tonight.
There is a lot in the middle of the story, but the end was brutal. Not only did Sarah and Max have to make the gut-wrenching decision to bring Buddy back knowing he would be euthanized, the shelter processed them as an owner-requested euthanasia as opposed to a shelter return. Why? This is likely because the euthanasia would not show in their intake stats – driven by a no-euthanasia goal, putting the full decision-making on two kind people who were only trying to adopt a safe dog to give a wonderful life.
There are few absolutes when it comes to how to proceed with dogs with questionable behavior—especially when shelters are full and resources are short. But we do need to be sure that if we are erring on the side of risk by sending out questionable dogs, we must be doing so with science, and providing adopters with a significant amount of support. Otherwise, we will lose all the folks like Sarah and Max, people and pets will get hurt, and ultimately more dogs in our shelters will be at risk of not finding a home as community confidence decreases (and then there are also the lawsuits from those who were hurt that many shelters are currently finding themselves embroiled in).
Where are our costs higher? What is the greatest loss?
I’ve been musing on this situation, and how I would write about it, ever since I first heard Buddy’s story. Is this an instance where the shelter’s goals got in the way? I grieve for Buddy and… The people matter, too… These lovely, wonderful, kind and humane people are completely lost from the shelter pool.
I myself had been leaning on the give-the-dog-a-chance lever for a while…or at least not over-behavioring in the shelter. But without more proven, scientifically validated support for our adopters who take on dogs who show potential risk, can we take the chance of losing more potential adopters? Of breaking more hearts? Of…
What are your thoughts?
More from Dr. Weiss
Shelterer or Rehomer?
Let’s Get Rid of “Them”
Is it time for a new goal?
About Dr. Emily Weiss
As an Applied Animal Behaviorist, Dr. Weiss has worked with species as varied as lions, orangutans, elephants and Komodo dragons, as well dogs, cats and horses. She is a nationally recognized speaker, and has published extensively on topics related to applied animal behavior and human-animal interactions. She served as the ASPCA's VP. of Research & Development, overseeing groundbreaking research related to the animal sheltering field and developing assessment tools for shelter animals. Before that she created training programs to improve husbandry and decrease stress for zoo animals.
More recently Dr. Weiss led ASPCA's Equine Welfare efforts, with a focus on increasing the rehoming of horses, the development of effective safety net programming and effective law enforcement response to cruelty and neglect.
In all of her work, two central questions have driven her approach: “Why?” and “How do you know?” These questions guide a consistent creative and scientific approach to the work of improving welfare.
Emily recently sunsetted her successful career at the ASPCA and will be tackling a few select projects where her knowledge, skills and talent can make a significant impact for animals.
Leave a Reply
Search The Association Blog
Contribute to The Blog
Sponsored by Hill's
Thank you for writing this important story and sharing this message.
I wanted to add one alternative perspective about shelters asking owners to sign an Owner Requested Euthanasia form vs processing the dog as a return. In some states, returns and owner surrenders have mandated holding periods and the dog might be required to be offered to rescue before the dog can be euthanized. For a dog who was struggling in the shelter before adoption and whose outcome is already known, it often feels cruel to make that dog stay in the stressful shelter setting for days when an alternative pathway is immediate humane euthanasia after time spent in a loving home.
Of course, I do not know the specifics of this situation so can’t say for sure that avoiding the euthanasia on their stats wasn’t the motivation. However, I do applaud the shelter for being transparent about the realistic outcome of a return of a dog who has shown such behaviors and would hate to see our community villainize a shelter for providing what could be the more humane option for a specific dog.
Thank you very much for sharing that information. In this state there is not such a law, but it is a good thing to keep in mind when looking at the data.
I appreciate this comment, I agree the fastest and transparent outcome is ideal.
I started in the sheltering world in 1990 when most dogs coming in the front door didn’t walk out again. We have all worked very hard over the ensuing years to change that. In most parts of the country that is no longer the case, and transport programs have dramatically improved outcomes even in areas where the communities have not yet caught up. Sadly, our efforts to save more lives have resulted in dogs being placed that 99% of the pet-owning population is ill-equipped to deal with. Live release is always the goal, but it should not be at the expense of public safety. We are professionals, it is our responsibility to make the hard decisions, it should not fall on adopters.
One case like this will cost many more lives. Most often, these people, who could have saved many more dogs over their lifetime, will never adopt again. Likely, after hearing their story their friends and family may be hesitant to adopt a shelter dog. There are a few cases where a marginal dog could be placed in one of those 1% of homes with a very experienced owner, but even that should not be done without offering ongoing behavioral support. It is time to start thinking of the big picture rather than just the magic “Live Release Rate”.
Thank you Peggy for your comment. Agree with much of what you noted. As I suggested in an earlier blog, shifting from goals of no euthanasia or 100% live release can, however counterintuitive it seems to some, result in saving more animals.
I do not think the dog should have been adopted out to a first time family, without support. I am autistic and showed the same behaviour as a child. Dogs who are most like myself as a child often die because no one gives them the proper support. I don’t bite anymore because I learned other ways to manage fear and sensory overload. Dogs too can learn. I don’t blame the people who adopted him, I think the shelter was dishonest, and the family had no support. The shelter should have been clearer about his situation and not adopted him to a first time family. He should have been a special needs foster to a family very familiar with dogs who have anxiety and biting issues until he learned to not bite. The shelter also failed him by not providing the family with the training and Individualized Education Plan, free of charge, to help him learn to be a happy dog.
Having worked in animal control for over 30 years, both in field and administrative roles, I understand why the shelter acted as they did when Buddy was returned. The pressure to achieve a 90% save rate is immense, and the criticism for not giving dogs with potentially dangerous behavior “a chance” affects everything from staff morale to funding and adoption rates.
However, I fault the shelter for lacking transparency with the adopters about Buddy’s behavior and its implications once he settled in at home. Transparency is crucial for maintaining credibility in the community. Shelters must accurately disclose all behaviors observed from the moment of contact with the animal. Ignoring growling, barking, or biting as mere fear does a disservice to adopters and the animals themselves.
It’s understandable if this couple hesitates to adopt from a shelter again, but I hope they reconsider. I also hope this incident serves as a learning opportunity for the shelter involved.
Great points Tricia. Thank you.
Thank you Tricia. I agree that the goals of no euthanasia or 100% live release can, as counterintuitive as it sounds, get in the way of helping animals. I wrote about this in a blog titled Is it time for a new goal?
There is so much focus on live release statistics that we are doing the adopters, the public and the animals a disservice by just focusing on that one metric for success.
I agree that the goals of no euthanasia or 100% live release can, as counterintuitive as it sounds, get in the way of helping animals. I wrote about this in a blog titled Is it time for a new goal?
At the very least the adopters should have been told about Buddy’s behavior in the shelter so they could make an informed decision. If the shelter was as well funded as you say why didn’t Buddy get help while there or at least further evaluation or his accommodations modified. And as you mention sending them home with how to help him and what to watch for. The re-Intake as a euth request is utterly disingenuous and for me completely undermines the shelter’s credibility. I’ve been an expert witness in lawsuits involving bites by dogs adopted from shelters. Sometimes the shelter appears to have done everything right and the bites just weren’t foreseeable. In too many other cases the dog clearly should never have gone out the door It’s not right IMO to push the euthanasia decision on to an unsuspecting family in situations where it was clearly the shelters job to make the hard decision. Shelters are not doing themselves the public or the animals they care for any favors by sidestepping the issue and making excuses. It’s awful to mark an animal for euthanasia but sadly there are some that just cannot be safe members of society
Thank you Suzanne for your comments and expertise. I appreciate all you do to help pets and their people.
Something not mentioned here, and makes me curious is, does the shelter in question have a foster and/or rescue partner program? Not touting our shelter in any way, but looking at the behavior notes regarding Buddy, he would have been removed from the adoption floor and made, at the very least, rescue only. But maybe also fosterable, to see how he truly was in a home setting. As a 13 year Foster Coordinator for a 10k+ intake per year open admission shelter, and a 15+ year foster of mainly behavior dogs, I find foster homes to be a valuable source of “real life” info as opposed to guessing what shelter behaviors *could actually be. As an employee of this shelter, watching the ebb and flow of things over the years, public perceptions changing, public support both wavering and rising, etc, we are battling, sometimes with and within ourselves, to be able to match public safety with live release. So when we can gather more information utilizing resources within our grasp, why aren’t we?
Joanne – excellent points. Skilled fosters can be very helpful in situations like these. I can not speak to why that did not happen for this dog, but certainly there are many shelters that have allocated resources toward other needs, or simply can only allocate resources towards the most basic of needs. We will be exploring how to pull up to examine shelter data and determine where the best opportunities for improving welfare and getting (or keeping) more pets home may lie. In some cases it may be through growth of such foster programs.
There is such an intense pressure (judgment) on public shelters to become adoption centers with low single digit euthanasia rates at the same time provide services to the public they serve. A public challenged by finances, insurance companies, medical costs, expectations and pressure living in society these days. Rarely (from any direction) does staff or management of a public shelter receive the funds, resources or support to effectively or efficiently care for the animals in their care. It takes a very unique person to work in the public area of animal services. I have seen way too many stories like the one presented. Thank you for presenting the human impact along with the cost to both human and animal. Education of the whole is the only path to improvement of any problem.
Not only the people who try to adopt behavioral challenged pets from a shelter that does not gove them enough information on the pet, but all their friends and family who are aware of the incident will be having second thought about adopting from a shelter as well. Unfortunately, I lost a friend that I was volunteering with at a humane society who took a dog out who was not either assessed properly or that information was not communicated to the team..she had him out in the yard and the dog attacked and killed her..he was not btw a pittbull..I’ve had dogs for many years, I’m 64 and I’ve always obtained my dogs from shelters as there are many many dogs who are more then worthy. Their only issue is that they were let down by humans. If you are not familiar with dogs take someone with you who is. And don’t pick a particular bread or look..pick the dog..the personality as dogs in the same breed can exhibit widely varying behaviors. I really hope that the people in this story eventually found their perfect dog as I am sure it’s out there waiting patiently on them..
As a behaviorist who has worked exclusively in shelters for 13 years I am curious regarding the details of the incident and what type of triggers caused the decisive action of the dog in this instance. The story itself seems to leave out what could be critical details as to why the dog had the emotional response it did. Idiopathic aggression is not likely an underlying cause as it is extremely rare. That being said, there has to be an underlying trigger that caused this adverse of a reaction of the animal. By no means am I trying to justify the poor bite inhibition of this dog, and it sounds like euthanasia would be the correct decision with an animal like this, but to relate growling and resource guarding a chew in a choke point(the kennel) in an over-arching environment that is notoriously scarce in resources and baseline mental/physical outlets(shelters) that help foster those behaviors, I would not label that somewhat common behavior seen in shelters as the precursor to be able to pre-emptively identify what was detailed as a pretty severe bite or attack from the dog. If that was the case we would be taken back decades into what would be archaic stats of live-outcomes.
I was waiting for this comment. Nothing in Buddy’s in shelter behavior seems concerning or out of the ordinary to me. The family is leaving out something that triggered this attack. To be on the opposite side, I don’t see how this is the fault of the shelter. Overexposure of negative behavior can prevent a lot more adoptions than it prevents bites like this happening which are rare. This seems like a no win situation on the side of the shelter. And seeing as the family went in knowing it would end in euthanasia I don’t actually see a problem with ORE as the outcome, as they were fully aware and seemed to consider that the best outcome themselves.