#behavioral euthanasia

I can't believe it's already been 5 years since this pretty but mean girl was surrendered. William Murderbeak is an interesting bird; she lays eggs, but she also crows and demonstrates many behaviors more typical of roosters, so I suspect there is something a little off-kilter hormonally. She will flog you like a rooster if you get in her space, and she can be a bully to other birds. Her previous owner brought her to my workplace and said she was a "devil bird" that killed two other hens, and that she would be dispatched if I didn't take her. Because we had the accommodations for a gradual, highly monitored introduction to other chickens, we decided to give her a chance.

For the record, it is extremely manipulative and shitty to tell rescuers that you will kill or abandon an animal if they don't take it, because at the end of the day, the animal is your responsibility, not theirs, and putting the onus of its fate on them is profoundly unfair. Rescue work is emotionally harrowing and the need is always greater than the resources at hand. To rescue responsibly, difficult decisions need to be made every day about what animals can and cannot be accepted. When rescuers lose sight of that and let only their desire to help guide their decision making, the situation tends to devolve into hoarding and neglect - an all too common outcome that isn't talked about in-community nearly as much as it should be.

We already know that the animals we can't help might suffer or die. We think about it all the time. We agonize over it. We rack our minds for how to make space for just one more, but unfortunately, "one more" is never just one. It is unending and relentless. And for some rescuers like myself, compassion fatigue brings us to a dangerous place where we need to stop rescuing entirely to recover and heal. It has been six years since we were last open to intakes, with very few exceptions made, William Murderbeak being one of them.

Pumping the brakes on active rescue allowed me the time and space to work closely with this bird to safely integrate her into a flock. It availed the resources to ensure that our chicken enclosure is spacious and filled with enrichment to reduce the likelihood of strained social dynamics in our birds. In William's case, her previous environment (a small store-bought coop) likely had much to do with her aberrant behavior there, because chickens respond to crowded and low-enrichment environments with aggression, feather picking, and even cannibalism. Despite her surly baseline temperament, we have had no serious incidents between her and the other birds, and keep a watchful eye to ensure that never happens.

“You contemplate keeping this sweet soul, but remind yourself that this is how hoarding starts and no one needs a dozen aggressive dogs under one roof. One of them is bound to turn on you, at some point, and that would get very ugly, very fast.

Then you think about how small their world is. How their quality of life (and yours) isn’t ideal. Because when you take on a dog that can’t do dog things they are, in fact, suffering. They are prisoners of strict management and safety. They are prisoners of their own broken, little brains!

So, on the day of, I fill out a contract and adopt my 4 legged land-shark, we do sniff walks, fetch, snuggles, and all the swimming they desire! They have their cheeseburgers and chicken nuggets, we go to the vet, we hug long and hard. I tell them I love them and I’m sorry they were damaged in their life before me. I tell them I’ll save another one in their honor… and I let them go….peacefully and selflessly.

I get to my car and break. Doubt and shame come into my head. “I could have done more!” “I should have just kept him!” “I should have tried harder!”

But the fact is I DID everything I could. And if I, a well-educated dog professional, struggle to manage this dog…how can I ask the general public to keep him safe? How can I put this dog into a place where he is bound to make a bad choice? Which will ultimately lead to the same fate…just not nearly as peacefully.

I want to sum it up like this. Every dog can not be saved!

I mean, they can… but at what cost to the dog? A lifetime of confinement? Such strict management that they only have a little time out of their crate a day? We are their guardians and it is our job to make these decisions when we see our dog is suffering.

So, can we stop the demonization of "kill shelters?"

For starters, let's stop calling them that and call them what they actually are- open intake shelters.

When it comes to public shelters, there are 2 varieties- open intake and limited intake.

Open intake shelters are required to take any animal given to them, found in their contracted area, surrendered, etc. when it happens. Because of the way they are funded, they do not have the ability to schedule surrender intakes and therefore often have to take in animals when they physically have nowhere to put them, which is what leads to euthanizing for space. Open intake shelters are frequently those labeled as "kill."

Limited intake shelters have the luxury of the ability to say "no" or "not now." Rather than being obligated to take any animal that comes their way exactly when it does, they can require scheduled drop offs for owner surrenders (while still having to take in strays and ACO seizures as they come). This allows them to not have to take in animals when they have literally nowhere to put them, and therefore enables them to not have to euthanize for space. Their ability to say "no" also allows them to turn away serious behavior cases that they think are beyond their ability to help, which is common practice among "no kill" shelters because they want to avoid jeopardizing their status as "no kill." Limited intake shelters are frequently the ones labeled as "no kill."

There is a time and place for both. Without open intake shelters, countless more animals would be loose on the streets in areas with larger feral/stray problems than up here, which poses a health and safety hazard. More animals would get dumped rather than responsibly surrendered because not everyone has the luxury of waiting several days or weeks to place their pet elsewhere.

There are far worse things than a peaceful death. It is sad when euthanasia for space has to happen, but it is not cruel. It does not cause the animal to suffer.

You know what does cause them to suffer?

Living on the streets at the mercy of the elements.

Being dumped because their people felt they had no other choice.

Staying in a home that can't care for them properly because that home has nowhere else to send them.

The list goes on.

On top of this, let's address the baggage of the term "kill" versus "no kill." Many people think that "no kill" means no euthanasias happen at all, but that simply isn't the case. A "no kill" shelter or rescue has a euthanasia rate of 10% or less. This accounts for both physical health euthanasias and behavioural euthanasias. Both are an important part of rescue work that many people outside of the field aren't prepared to face. It is a harsh reality, but one that absolutely must be accepted.

It is kinder to euthanize a serious behavior case than it is to warehouse them.

It is kinder to euthanize a serious behavior case than to adopt them out only for their adopter to have to make the call anyway.

It is kinder to euthanize a serious medical case than it is to keep them around, just for the sake of saying you didn't kill them.

And yes, it is kinder to euthanize than to let overpopulation of strays cause suffering to the animals roughing it on their own, potentially damaging the native ecosystem and posing a threat to humans and other domestic animals living in the area.

Everyone in this field is in it because they love animals and they want to help them- staff and volunteers at both open intake and limited intake shelters are there because they want to help as many as they can and see them move on to thrive and succeed in their new homes.

Please stop demonizing open intake shelters. Stop cries to ban them. Stop being nasty to and about their staff and volunteers. Everyone is doing their best. In some areas there are simply too many animals, so when they can't get them out fast enough- either to adoptive homes or other rescues and shelters with more space- the only choice that remains is to euthanize. It is sad, but it is not cruel.

This is not to make light of fatal or near fatal maulings. Even medium sized dogs (40-60lbs) are remarkably strong, fast, and have a pretty strong bite. The majority of dogs are large enough to seriously hurt us, and sometimes tragedy happens and they do. So when we’re looking at this insanely small chance that someone would be seriously injured or killed by a dog, it really makes you appreciate how abnormal these dogs are that bite with intent to harm. All dogs can bite, and a dog that bites isn’t automatically vicious or dangerous. We have a tendency to expect perfection from dogs, even when setting them up to fail (i.e. letting little kids climb on dogs or reach in their food bowls). Canids are very good at controlling bite pressure, and dogs have evolved along side us for tens of thousands of years as well. So when a dog bites to maim/kill, they mean it. Yes, horrible accidents can happen (especially for kids who are unfortunately at face level with a lot of dogs), but I’m specifically talking about intent to harm. It’s not normal. A dog doesn’t accidentally bite an arm and violently head shake; that’s intentional. So when a dog gets to the point where its behavior is that intense, that is a very serious condition. And a very serious safety hazard. And a very serious quality of life issue. We don’t know why some dogs can come from good litters, with good socialization, and good training and still end up dangerously aggressive. But we do know that it’s not how you raise them. Yes, socialization matters, but genetics also matters. And no, these dogs weren’t automatically abused. Some of them are just...not right. If it was all how you raise them, how did the majority of the Vick dogs end up being successfully integrated into pet homes? How did they become therapy dogs and breed ambassadors? How did they live with cats, and kids, and other dogs? Not all of them could, but most of them were able to live at least a semi-normal life after their rescue.

Not gonna lie, I had to look this up.

I firmly believe that euthansia for aggression is not wrong. It sounds like this dog had a long history of dog aggression and had injured her son before (although apparently not through biting). This sort of dog can be very dangerous to re-home because there is ALWAYS the potential for them to injure a human or another animal once they have demonstrated a lack of bite inhibition. And, of course, it would not be safe for the dog to remain in the home with the child if she opted for serious training, which may not even work. With this kind of dog, you can’t go on vacation, because they can harm the pet sitter, and they’re too dangerous to board. You can’t slip up in training even once - any exposure to a trigger can set back training for months or even permanently. That’s just the sad reality, and of course a prominent figure is going to receive backlash for euthanizing an animal. I’m not sure why she even decided it would be a good idea to talk about it.