HBO Documentary- Shelter Dogs

[austin]

I just saw this. It should be interesting.

"What happens to the approximately five million abandoned and unwanted dogs who end up in shelters across the U.S. each year? Only a quarter of America's shelter dogs ever find new homes, presenting a murky moral debate for those who care for the leftovers.

Through a unique window into an upstate New York shelter, this documentary takes a hard, bold look at a tough dilemma.

Premieres Tuesday, January 27th at 7:30pm ET/PT"

[Troy]

I wish they would take a look at what certain breed specific type ordinances have done to innocent dogs within the shelter system.

[Wookie'sMom]

This is a documentary about Sue Sternberg (might have mis-spelled her name) who is the "inventor" of the shelter temperment testing to determine "adoptability". So they take a dog that is completely stressed out by the shelter environment and put it through all sorts of tests like having a fake hand shoved into it's food bowl (when it's already feeling really insecure) and put down any dog that has ANY adverse reaction. This includes dogs that growl and bare their teeth. That way they can put the dogs to sleep as un-adoptable and say that they have a no-kill shelter rather than actually trying to help the dogs in any way. I think that it's deplorable. I've heard from people who have seen this that it's a very...feel-good view of what she's doing.

[R&Gsmom]

So are you saying that you don't believe in the tests? What would you suggest we do instead?

Would you suggest a shelter that is already overcrowded keep dogs that are food aggressive so that they can go kennel crazy while waiting for that experienced home that knows how to handle that sort of problem to come along? Or should they just overlook the growling and bearing of teeth, adopt him out to joe public adopter just to have him bite the new owner and be put down while causing a new family trauma and putting another bad experience to the breeds name?

Wait maybe a rescue group who has a limited number of foster homes should take the dog in to their program and put him in a foster home while MANY MANY others that are wonderful issue proof dogs sit in the kennels because there are no open spots since all the project dogs took up their spaces?

I have studied her test and used it many many times with every breed from jack russell to rottweiler to cocker spaniel to pitt bull and it works as long as you put some common sense and breed knowledge behind it.

I commend HBO for finally showing America what their careless throw away attitude is causing. I commend them for showing others what rescue/shelter workers go through everyday when having to face life and death constantly in their work. And as contriversial as Sue Sternberg is I COMMEND her for stepping forward and creating something that we all can use to keep the public safe.

[Brooke&Ryan]

Interesting. Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure to watch...

:)
Brooke

[wilko]

Originally Posted by R&Gsmom

So are you saying that you don't believe in the tests? What would you suggest we do instead?

Would you suggest a shelter that is already overcrowded keep dogs that are food aggressive so that they can go kennel crazy while waiting for that experienced home that knows how to handle that sort of problem to come along? Or should they just overlook the growling and bearing of teeth, adopt him out to joe public adopter just to have him bite the new owner and be put down while causing a new family trauma and putting another bad experience to the breeds name?

Wait maybe a rescue group who has a limited number of foster homes should take the dog in to their program and put him in a foster home while MANY MANY others that are wonderful issue proof dogs sit in the kennels because there are no open spots since all the project dogs took up their spaces?

Hmmm... surely if dog has behavioural issues it isn't the dogs fault but the old owners who dumped it anyway? I think the point is should a dog which has been mistreated or neglected be less entiitled to our help? From your post I would guess you are taking the pragmatic stance of helping the dogs it is easiest to help first so as to help the most?

That might be sensible, and it might be easier but it ain't neccesarily morally RIGHT. I make a monthly donation to the NCDL in the UK, because they will not put a healthy dog to sleep. PERIOD

[K-9Girl]

Thanks for the post. Sounds like something that I would like to watch. I will be sure to tune in....

Sara

[frontierrots]

Wilko

You may no know this but there are THOUSANDS of Rotts in shelters here in the US. WAY too many for rescue groups to help them all

There are also NO homes for dogs that need lots of rehabilitation and a great many people who will sue for a scratch.

That said the groups have to choose the best dogs to save so that they may use their limited resources wisely and help the most amount of dogs they can without tying up a valuable foster home for a year or more while rehabbing a problem dog

Is this fair? surely not, but is a fact that rescues have limited funds and even more limits of the number of experienced foster homes. Rescue groups can NOT save all the dogs, so they have to save as many as they can. Some dogs must be sacrificed to enable the greater number to be saved. And a point that many don't like to hear is that some dogs are better off put down than "saved"

[PuppyLover]

Bit of confusion, is this show about the no kill shelters or the Animal Control shelters. If no kill shelter then yes, it is bad.

If it is Animal Control, there is only so much room when the number that comes in daily far exceeds the few that might go out.

[Brooke&Ryan]

Originally Posted by PuppyLover

Bit of confusion, is this show about the no kill shelters or the Animal Control shelters. If no kill shelter then yes, it is bad.

If it is Animal Control, there is only so much room when the number that comes in daily far exceeds the few that might go out.

PuppyLover----This is the synopsis for the show:

Each year, approximately 5 million dogs are brought to animal shelters in the U.S.; the majority - nearly 4 million in all - will never be adopted. Some of these unwanted dogs will spend the rest of their lives in cages; others will be euthanized.

Cynthia Wade's documentary SHELTER DOGS is a compelling look at how one unique shelter responds to a seemingly endless stream of homeless animals. Filmed over the course of two years, SHELTER DOGS follows Sue Sternberg, founder of Rondout Valley Animals for Adoption in Accord, New York, as Sternberg and her staff navigate a world in which there are no simple solutions -- and where decisions are often life-and-death.

Some of the dogs are immediately placed in wonderful, permanent homes. But there are also troubling moral dilemmas surrounding some of the "gray area" dogs. If a dog bites, is it ethical to adopt him out to the general public? If a dog guards his food, can he be trusted in a family with children? And what about the dogs that never find homes -- is it more humane for them to spend their lives in a shelter or to euthanize them? This provocative documentary provides a fresh look at these kinds of issues and the complex, morally ambiguous world of animal sheltering.

[R&Gsmom]

This may be incredibly harsh but I'm not sorry to say I would rather fail a dog that has issues that may harm someone if adopted out and therefore sign his death certificate then let the poor thing go kennel crazy, pacing circles in a cage for the rest of his life.

I will NOT contribute to the bad reputation of this breed by believeing that every dog is adoptable.

I only have a certain number of foster homes to work with. And of those there are only a couple that could handle rehabilitating a dog that has food, resource, dog or people aggression issues.

With that in mind the rescue gets 100's of phone calls a week asking for help with unwanted rottweilers. So what do you think we should do?

Does it bother me to have to make those types of decisions? Yes. Do I lose sleep at night? No. Why? because I know I am doing what is right for the breed as a whole. And the ones that I can save, the ones that are wonderful representations of the breed in tempermant, that won't give another insurance company a reason to add Rottweilers to their "do not cover" list, that won't give another town or state a reason to pass that breed banning legislation, that won't cause another politican to back laws saying that I HAVE to muzzle my dog when in public because it is a Rottweiler, that won't give another News Reporter a story about a vicious attack...Those dogs I know I made a difference for.

I'm glad in your country you don't face the problems that we do of overcrowding in the shelters. Maybe someday God willing my rescue won't be needed.

[angel girl]

Crosspost from other MB

"Shelter Dogs" A Disappointment - But Still Worth Watching
HBO Documentary Calls Attention to Pet Overpopulation, but with Dangerously Narrow Perspective

On January 27, 2004 a much-awaited documentary film will premiere on HBO. Directed by Cynthia Wade, "Shelter Dogs" is advertised as a film about pet overpopulation.

On the HBO web site the description of the film reads, "What happens to the approximately five million abandoned and unwanted dogs who end up in shelters across the U.S. each year? Only a quarter of America's shelter dogs ever find new homes, presenting a murky moral debate for those who care for the leftovers." Unfortunately, as a film about pet overpopulation in the United States, the film falls short.

"Shelter Dogs" is more about Rondout Valley Animals for Adoption that is run by Sue Sternberg in upstate New York than it is about pet overpopulation. In fairness to HBO, the company does include a line in the marketing about the film that reads, "Through a unique window into an upstate New York shelter, this documentary takes a hard, bold look at a tough dilemma."

Unfortunately, presenting such a narrow perspective on an issue as large and complex as pet overpopulation risks missing a major part of the story, which is exactly what happened in this case. Sue Sternberg and Rondout Kennels appear to have but one solution to the problem - kill pets. There is virtually no talk in the film of the kennels spay/neuter policies. There is no talk of microchipping or other pet identification programs. There is no talk of possible legislative changes that could help. The film, in fact, leaves the viewer with the impression that there is only one choice shelters have, to take animals in and kill them.

The film clearly suggests that this is the point of view of Sternberg, which is probably one of the reasons she comes off as an emotional shell of a human being who is, perhaps, all too ready to end the life of a pet.

In one particularly insightful scene, a small, black and frightened Cocker Spaniel is brought to her shelter. The poor dog is, clearly, suffering from neglect. He has ear infections. He is badly matted and in need of grooming. Without temperament testing the dog, Sternberg recommends ending the dog's life. Her staff objects, suggesting that until the ear infections are healed, and the grooming issues are addressed, they cannot effectively temperament test the dog to determine its adoptability. Sternberg tells the staff that she does not "feel" the dog will test well. However, after some argument with the staff, she agrees to hold off killing the dog until after it is stabilized and tested.

An even more telling scene comes when the dog is temperament tested by Sternberg for resource guarding behavior. Initially, Sternberg gives the dog a large bowl of very tempting food, a mix of kibble and canned food to ensure that it is eager to eat the meal. She then takes an artificial hand and begins to remove food from the dish while the dog is eating. Initially, there is no reaction from the dog. So she increases the stimulation on the dog. She begins pulling the dish away and poking the dog with the artificial hand, and continues to do this for quite some time, until the dog begins to display some mild resource guarding behavior. At that time, she removes the food and gives the dog a pig's ear and continues the poking and prodding in a more aggressive manner, which, to me, appeared to border on abuse.

Not surprisingly, the dog eventually becomes aggressive, at which time, Sternberg pulls out her own video camera and films the aggressive behavior. She then shows the tape to her staff to explain to them why she had to put the dog to sleep. No discussion about resource guarding behavior in dogs, or how dogs that exhibit this behavior can be trained. It appears she approached the temperament test expecting a specific outcome, and that she did whatever she could to achieve that outcome.

On the subject of no-kill shelters the film makes only one statement, that dogs that are "unadoptable" are either killed, or they live the rest of their lives in a cage, which, of course, is not true.

All-in-all, I think the film is interesting from the perspective of showing the emotional intensity involved in working at an animal shelter. It will also raise some awareness of pet overpopulation. Unfortunately, the film also makes a lot of assumptions and repeats misconceptions that could do more harm to the humane community than good.

Another documentary on the subject of pet overpopulation, titled "Best Friends Forgotten" that is hosted by David Duchovny will be showing soon on Animal Planet Canada and PBS in the USA. This film is likely to present a more complete and balanced story, including interviews with humane organizations in different communities.

[Wookie'sMom]

The problem I have with this program is that they are taking dogs that DON'T have behavioral problems, they are just dogs, rather than little people in dog-fur suits. So they're taking all of the dogs that AREN'T acting like little people in fur suits and killing them, and then claiming to be a no-kill shelter because they aren't killing any "adoptable" dogs. There is no working with the dog on these issues, and even Sue Sternberg has admitted that her own dogs would not pass the tests.

They're calling themselves NO-KILL SHELTERS when they're really killing thousands of dogs so that they can feel good about what they're doing and get public support. I know that there is a pet overpopulation problem, and I know that it needs to be delt with in some way. But I don't think that denying that we are killing millions of pets a year is going to help the problem at all. So yes, I do think that what Sue Sternberg is doing and promoting is wrong.

[danyp1]

I have not seen the documentary and I`m not qualified really to give any opinion on her test.

BUT I think a lot of people are lulled into believing non-kill shelters will not destroy a dog which seems not to be the case. I think any dog pushed to far can bite or show some form of aggression.
If you bring your dog into a no kill shelter your dog should not be killed if they accept the dog.
Do the owners surrendering a dog know about these tests when they give up a dog and that their dog will be killed if he fails it?

[PuppyLover]

I haven't seen the show so I can't comment on it but I believe as Holly does. Not every dog is adoptable, it doesn't matter what kind of shelter it is, or what breed the dog is, if the dog is known to be vicious it can't be adopted out and the odds of rehabilitation are slim. Keeping such dogs would take cage space better used for adoptable dogs, or as Holly mentioned take up valuable foster home space from the dogs that can be rehabilitated.

Maybe the answer is that if possible, No Kill shelters should test the dogs BEFORE they accept them? Of course then the problem is what will the owner do with the dog if they don't accept them? Dump them on the side of the road somewhere to be a burden to everyone?