My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Weekly Roundup, Week Ending 11/15/09 | Main | Pink Toenail Polish »

November 16, 2009



and this is different from:

how? According to several people, there WERE other options for the dog BR is talking about.


I don't know any specifics of the case and what other options were available. But if there were other viable options available, there probably isn't much difference between the two.


If there is a reasonable option available that allows a dog to live instead of die, that option should be fully investigated and considered to my mind. No excuses.


So what happened with all the money they most likely raised by this story? They owed the donors the option of sending him to rescue!


I am completely baffled about the whole Oreo outcry. Here we have a Pit Bull that is a headline waiting to happen, and people that I thought were quite sensible are up in arms about this dog being euthanized.

Dogs like Oreo and the bleeding hearts and thugs that keep them are the reason that the breed is in trouble. How about we wait until all of the stable dogs that don't NEED "rehabilitation" are safe from euthanasia before we even consider fighting for the Oreos of the world?



Here's my deal with it Aimee. I realize that, yes, there are thousands of dogs that need help at all times and only so many resources to help them. I get that sometimes, if a dog is going to need extensive rehabilitation, it makes sense for an organization like the ASPCA to euthanize a dog-aggressive dog and use those same resources to save maybe four other dogs.

I get that decision. I really do.

But I also think euthanasia should always be a last resort - -once all other options have been exhausted. In this case, the ASPCA had another option for a rescue group that WANTED to try to save this dog. And the ASPCA, even though there was another option available, chose to kill the dog instead.

I think that is a big deal for one of the supposed leaders in the animal welfare movement to choose to kill an animal over another option. If no groups had stepped up for Oreo, then I think many would have trouble finding fault with what the ASPCA chose to do. But with other viable options available, choosing to kill an animal instead isn't something that I would expect from an organization supposedly dedicated to what is best for the animals.


"Here we have a Pit Bull that is a headline waiting to happen" Yes, and the headline is about its murder. That "headline" argument is mute in this discussion - it was going to be rehabbed or live its life at a sanctuary. Showing the world that dogs like Oreo deserve to be saved show the world that ALL OF THEM deserve to be saved.

I'm particularly rubbed wrong by this "headline waiting to happen" excuse to kill. This excuse usually comes from people who call themselves "pit bull advocates". Anyone that claims to love dogs should NEVER be the ones advocating their death. Esp with this kind of fear, as we all know pit bulls can make the headlines for non-events so with that argument lets not adopt out any.

I understand that sometimes the hard decisions need to be made and maybe you think this dog isn't a hill to die on. But if you are truely BAFFLED by the outcry, I think you need to rethink your views on animal welfare.


I am well aware that Pit Bulls can make headlines for other reasons. My own dog has graced the newspaper, including the front page, more times than I can count.

My question is WHY save a dog that needs "rehabilitation" when there are hundreds that don't. Do some dogs deserve life more than others? No, I don't think so. But, we are not in a place where every dog CAN survive. We need to chose the best of the best, the ones that are breed ambassadors. Why do those dogs die while poor examples of the breed get rescued? And in the time that it takes to "rehabilitate" one dog to the point that it can possibly be placed in a home, how many other perfectly stable ones could have been saved? This is not in the best interest of the future of the breed.

You may call it fear mongering, but I call it reality. I've had to fight BSL in my town. I've come inches from losing my dog because of incidents with dogs that don't have correct breed temperament. The future of the breed is in trouble. If one cares about the future of the breed, harsh decisions need to be made.

My views on animal welfare are based on the good of the whole, not the individual. I am quite comfortable with my views, thanks.



I guess your whole argument can be cyclical. If your argument is, why spend time and money to rehabilitate one dog when there are many others that need help, then why would the ASPCA help Oreo at all? Why would they spend thousands of dollars and 5 months trying to cure a dog that had two broken legs and a broken rib at all when there are perfectly healthy dogs that need help?

Again, if the ASPCA was the end entity, it would be hard for me to criticize their decision because of what you say.

However, there was another option. Another organization whose main goal is to rehabilitate the dog. Are we to criticize Pets Alive for their goal of wanting to rehabilitate a dog? I'm not sure I can go there.

We aren't talking about sending Oreo to a home where it could end up on the front page of a newspaper. I agree that that would be irresponsible. We're talking about it going to a sanctuary with trained professionals to work with the dog. It's a major difference than what you're talking about IMO.

PAMM - People Against Murdering Mutts

Why save any pit bulls at all? Even the good ones "make the papers"? Kill every single one that enters the shelter and then there will be fewer to make headlines. Maybe Skeldon can get a job in Iowa?


I got this from the following link:


In a statement, ASPCA President Ed Sayres called the decision to euthanize Oreo "difficult and heartbreaking," but he insisted it had been the best decision both for the general public and for the dog. "Despite extensive behavior rehabilitation efforts undertaken by ASPCA staff, Oreo continued to lunge, growl, snap and attempt to bite," Sayres said. "She would lunge at a behaviorist, only to spontaneously and unpredictably redirect her aggression toward her handler. She could not be socialized with other dogs for fear of an attack -- her aggression toward other dogs was clearly evident during her evaluations."


If what they said was true and I was in the possession of the dog, it would have been euthanized. I don't care if Ian Dunbar, Cesar Milan, or Best Friends told me that they wanted the dog, it wouldn't leave my hands alive. What if Pets Alive's employees screwed up? What if the dog got loose and hurt somebody, or even injured an employee there? I personally wouldn't be able to live with myself, even if they did sign a waiver. Would that even hold up in court if you knowingly give a potentially dangerous animal to somebody else? The liability is much too high.



I guess the difference between you and me is that I do believe that the vast majority of dogs, with time and knowledge, can be rehabilitated. It is true that some are too far gone to save, but most do quite a good job at adapting in an appropriate environment -- which is seldom a large shelter. If an organization wants to take the time/resources to work with one of these dogs I think it at least needs to be considered....which i don't think the ASPCA even did.

Informed Animal Lover

This is a tragic story...after reading similar cases and not seeing any word about aggressive and erratic behaviors brought on by the damages of vaccines I have to wonder...why are true animals lovers not making this connection? In the case of abused dogs...who are already suffering from issues, to then load them up with toxins that can go straight to the brain, heart, kidney's, liver and gut...just doesn't makes sense. Just as we have choices to not kill and we have learned to rehabilitate these precious animals through education and accepting new ways...we also need to educate ourselves much more on serious behavioral issues linked to vaccinations.

Our animals are showing the exact behaviors and experiencing the same ill health effects from vaccines as our precious children are. When the victim cannot speak many other things will be blamed while the damage continues unabated- until we stop and look at all the possibilities for these behaviors and health issues. There are many noted calm, docile, companions that are turning on their human loved ones due to the serious assault of vaccines. Look it up and then start asking why no one is doing a thing about the serious abuse of over vaccinating our animals? This is the first thing they do when a shelter gets their hands on any animal and since they just keep adding more vaccines it is warranted for far more attention then it is getting. Because the damages from vaccines are "accumulative" each one adding more risks of more damages. Look up the work of Dr. Russell Blaylock, and Dr. Andrew Moulden for far more on that issue. In the case of an already abused is very easy to discount aggressive behavior, after so-called attempts to rehabilitate them have failed.. as "expected," when it could be the results of vaccine side effects attacking their central nervous system and brains. Children who are exhibiting serious vaccine reactions have also been known to become aggressive, out of control, fits of rages, striking others and themselves. Banging their heads on everything in sight just trying to get the attack on their brains to stop. The damages to the brains of babies from vaccines have been so severe that they have been mistaken for shaken baby syndrome. Look up Alan Yurko and many other cases just like his for your proof of that. Then tell me...just how would an animal show those side effects? Would they snap, be irritable, growl, not always cooperate? If it makes a human react in very unpredictable erratic ways...I would not expect less reactions from an animal. Animals distinctly go into defense mode when they feel they are being attacked... Since they cannot speak we do not know what they are fighting against. We only know that if their "behavior" is seen as aggressive toward "humans"...their life suddenly becomes worth very little. I am sorry to see Oreo was victimized again and again. We can only hope he will serve as the canary in the coal mine for other animals to prevent the same thing from happening again. We have 67 million children in the world now diagnosed with autism. They have already been those canaries in the coal mine for humans. They came to light with a failure to report vaccines in the 90% range. So they represent 10% of the true victims with vaccines being the number one cause. With even less accurate reporting on animal reactions to vaccines we can only guess at what the numbers are for animals. Their human companions need to first know the signs of vaccine damages to be able to report them. Do you know the signs? Would you know why your beloved animal companion suddenly developed asthma, diabetes, allergies, psychosis, rare cancers, or developed aggressive behaviors-never before seen in them? Vaccine damages are reversible too, but we have to first know "what" we are treating to heal our loved ones. I do not know if this was the case with Oreo...I do know they had another choice and he didn't have to die. I also know we cannot continue to load our precious loved ones up with all these toxins and expect them to remain in good health. There are consequences for all these choices.I thank you for your time and I wish you all well.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)