View at a curious mixed breed dog chasing striped kitten. indoor
In a perfect world, the lion really would lie down with the lamb (or the wolf with the rabbit), but our world isn’t perfect, and introductions don’t always go as smoothly as we might hope.
If either party displays a strong arousal response or strong fear/stress response, you’ll need to incorporate more significant behavior modification protocols into your introduction scenario. The careful introduction process described in the main articlewill prevent any disasters, but if you see significant distress or arousal behaviors from either animal, abort the introduction and rethink your position:
• Am I truly committed to making the effort that will be necessary for this new animal companion to live safely and happily in my family?
• If so, are all members of this family also in agreement and willing and able to do the behavior modification and management necessary to accomplish this?
• If behavior modification is not successful, are we prepared to very carefully manage this environment for the remainder of our animals’ lives?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the prospective new family member is probably better off returning from whence she came, or being uber-managed until you can rehome her, if she came from a neglected or otherwise undesirable situation.
The photo that launched an Instagram career. Bob the Golden Retriever and a number of his little bird friends were photographed by their owner, Luis Higa, JR. of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Higa raised Bob (and his next Golden Retriever , Marley) from young pups in the presence of a variety of birds, as well as a Guinea pig and hamster. Phot courtesy of @bob_marley_goldenretriever
When you think about it, it’s a bit of a miracle that animals who would be predator and prey in many environments are often able to live peacefully together in our homes. How does this happen?
Sometimes it just happens, thanks to good luck, but more often it’s a result of careful planning and introduction. Throw in some good behavior modification, and we can improve the odds of a peaceful coexistence well beyond mere chance.
THE CHALLENGE
We know that our dogs are predators – and some certainly seem to be more predatory than others. This is a nature/nurture thing – partly due to genetics and partly due to environment.
Some dog breeds have been genetically programmed to find predatory behavior highly reinforcing. Think of all the various terriers, bred to kill rats and other vermin on a farm. Think of the hounds, bred to chase and kill a variety of different species for the hunter who follows. Then there are the spaniels, setters, and retrievers, bred to locate, indicate, and flush game for the hunter, and retrieve that game gently, with a very soft mouth after it has been killed by the hunter. The herding breeds are supposed to utilize the stalking piece of the predatory sequence but are never supposed to kill the stock they are herding.
Still, there are Jack Russell Terriers who live in harmony with cats and parakeets. Just because a dog has a genetic propensity to find a behavior reinforcing doesn’t mean he will actually engage in the behavior. The terrier who has never been given the opportunity to chase and kill small animals has probably never had the behavior reinforced. If he was well-managed since puppyhood and grew up learning how to behave appropriately around cats and birds in his home, he would never learn that it was fun to chase and kill small animals, so he doesn’t. (It also helps if the cats and birds in his house have grown up with and are calm around dogs, so they don’t offer behaviors that might trigger a chase response in typical Jack Russells.)
Meanwhile, there are Australian Shepherds – dogs who have been genetically programmed to gather and keep track of cattle and sheep without hurting one – who will eagerly chase and kill bunnies.
As you go forward with a plan to integrate your household with a variety of animal species, keep in mind that, even though they share your sofa and Starbucks habit, deep down, dogs are still predators. If given the opportunity to learn that killing bunnies or cats is fun, many of them will enjoy doing it, even if they don’t have a strong genetic propensity to find the behavior reinforcing.
All else being equal, it will likely be easier to convince your Aussie to live peacefully with small animals than your JRT, but both breeds (and representatives of every other breed) can learn to do it, too.
GREAT STARTS
The easiest way to create interspecies household harmony is to start with a puppy and carefully manage her interactions with other animals as she matures. If she is consistently reinforced for calm behavior in their presence and not allowed to play roughly with them (rough play can turn deadly), she will come to see them as family members and learn to be calm with them.
In theory, it’s simple, yet it can take a lot of management and training for some pups to reach maturity with a “small animals are my friends” world view. Until she learns impulse control, your pup needs to be on-leash in the presence of other small animals in your household, so she doesn’t have the opportunity to perceive them as animated stuffed toys.
If, despite your precautions, it appears your pup has an unhealthy interest in the creatures around her, you’ll need to pursue some of the behavior modification protocols that follow, and if necessary, seek the assistance of a qualified force-free professional.
From the other side, it is just as useful to start young with your “other” species, introducing them to dogs early in their lives, and making sure they have good experiences with canines of various shapes and sizes. A positive association with dogs from early on will reduce stress and make adjustment easier for them when you bring a new predator into the home.
New dog, who ‘dis? This large, calm cat can probably hold his own against a new puppy smaller than himself – but this isn’t the point! If the pup suddenly decided to chase the cat, he risks learning that such a chase is super fun! Simple leashing the pup prevents that behavior from being reinforced. So leash up!
INTRODUCING A NEW DOG
Whether you’re bringing a new puppy, an adolescent, or an adult dog into your multi-species home, it behooves you to orchestrate careful introductions to set the stage for a future peaceful co-existence.
Ask for information, but take it with a grain of salt. It helps if you have any history about your adopted adolescent or adult dog’s prior relationships with other species – but don’t rely on the information. Several years ago, some of my clients were assured by a rescue group that the adult German Shepherd Dog they were adopting had lived compatibly with cats. The dog’s ability to do so in their home, however, required several months of dedicated management and behavior modification work (see “Transformation: Predator to Pal,” WDJ July 2013). Even shelters that include dog-dog and/or dog-cat introductions during their assessment processes can’t guarantee that your newly adopted dog will behave the same with other animals in your home as she did at the shelter.
Set up for success. Before you first bring your new family member into the house, shut away all your other animal companions. Your new dog will likely be stressed from the journey – and remember, even happy excitement causes physiological stress. Give her time to settle down before upsetting her applecart again.
If she seems excessively stressed by the change in her life fortunes, don’t even attempt any introductions on the first day. You don’t need to add that level of stress to the early relationship-building process. If, on the other hand, she seems cool, calm, and collected, then you can proceed after a reasonable cool-down period of maybe an hour or two.
Don’t mistake stressed, shut-down behavior for calm. If you aren’t skilled at assessing canine body language, have someone who has more dog experience with you (see “Listen By Looking,” August 2011). Either way, you’ll want to have a second person with you for the introductions, to manage the other animals, and in case things go wrong and you need help separating animals.
Keep contained. With one of you safely holding the new dog on leash, bring in one other animal, also safely contained in some manner – in a cage or carrier, or on leash – and watch your new dog’s body language very closely. Your dog’s ideal response is interested and calm.
Go slow! For this first encounter, your goal is for the two animals to be in each other’s presence without either one getting overly stressed or excited. Keep them as far apart as necessary to accomplish this, and feed treats if necessary, to help each calm down or be less stressed. Even if things go well, do not try to bring them nose-to-nose on the first meeting. Err on the side of caution. You’ve got plenty of time to help them be best buddies – or at least to live in peace.
Gradually, over a period of days, weeks, or even months, bring them closer together and allow more intimate contact, while still using uber-management to make sure only good things happen. If you have several other animals, use your good judgment about how often and how many introductions you do at any given time or in any given period.
Depending on your results, you may be able to relax management fairly quickly, or you may need to keep some management in place forever. Dog and cats frequently become compatible housemates with no management needed. Other small companion animals may need more protection from your canine predator, especially when you aren’t present. Provide multiple escape routes for your small pets, whatever your ultimate level of management.
INTRODUCING A NEW PET TO YOUR “OLD DOG”
Perhaps your dog is a long-term family member, and the new family member in your home is another type of animal. You probably have a better idea of what your dog’s response is likely to be (calm and non-predatory, we hope!), but you still want to give your new pet plenty of time and space to adjust to the idea of living with a predator. Your introduction will be similar to that described above, but in this case, you’ll be paying even more attention to the newcomer, gauging his reaction to his new life situation.
If you are not already familiar with the body-language communication of the new species, be sure to research it well in advance. The less domesticated/more exotic the species, the more likely they are to do a freeze/shut-down response in the presence of a predator, and the easier it is to make a tragic mistake and misinterpret this as calm and relaxed.
INTRODUCING LARGE COMPANION ANIMALS
We tend to think of small animals when we talk about introducing our dogs to new family members, but there are plenty of canines who share their living spaces (indoors and out) with large animals such as pigs, goats, sheep, llamas, emus, horses, and more.
Introductions to these animals, whether the dog is new or the other species is new, is every bit as important as the small pets. Keep in mind that your dog might be the more vulnerable species in some of these relationships (since a horse’s kick or stomp can easily kill a dog, and even a cranky pet pig or llama can hurt an unwary pup).
Your introduction process is much the same as described above – moving more quickly through the procedure if things go smoothly, more slowly if not, and doing behavior modification if necessary.
Consider additional factors inherent with large animals; management alone might be realistic for a dog who doesn’t do well with horses – maybe you just never take her to the barn. However, if you have a miniature house-pig, or a miniature horse working as your service animal, you’ll need to do the work to get them all comfortable and well-behaved together.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
If the challenge looks surmountable and you’re willing to do the work, get started immediately.
Have the whole family participate in the discussion and agree on the rules for management. Consider padlocks for doors if there are small children in the home who will have difficulty complying despite their good intentions. Develop communications systems so it is clear which companion animals are where and when. No “oops” allowed; someone’s life may depend on it.
Discuss and agree on which behavior modification protocols will be used. My first choice is usuallycounter-conditioning and desensitization (CC&D; see next page for step-by-step instructions). Constructional Aggression Treatment (CAT) and/or Behavior Adjustment Training (BAT) are other protocols that can be useful. (For more information about both protocols, see “Fear Aggression in Dogs,” WDJ August 2016.) Seriously consider bringing in a qualified force-free professional to help you with these, especially if you are not familiar and experienced with the protocols.
Basic training. Every dog should be the graduate of at least one basic good manners class (and of course, puppies should go to puppy kindergarten!). The communication and relationship achieved between dog and human through training will be invaluable in sorting out your inter-species relationships.
WORTH THE EFFORT
Whether it takes days, weeks or months to accomplish a reasonable degree of inter-species tranquility, it can be well worth the effort. I know how greatly my own life has been enriched by sharing my home and my heart with well over a dozen different species of animals over the years, for many years more than 20 animal companions at a time. It wasn’t always easy, but it was always worth it.
Ask a dog trainer to tell you one of their biggest pet peeves about their training clients, and they will almost always mention the fact that the average dog owner almost seems to actively resist the concept of “high-value rewards.”
I’ve sat in on a lot of different trainers’ classes, and during the first session, all trainers make an effort to describe the treats they want to see their clients bring to puppy kindergarten and beginning dog training classes: extra-special treats, such as fresh meats and tiny cubes of fragrant cheeses. Extra-high-value treats are needed, it is explained, because the group-class environment is so exciting and distracting to the dogs and puppies who are new to this, that the owners will need reinforcers of the highest value to the dogs, to capture and hold their attention in a highly distracting environment. (A training center can also be very stressful for shy, undersocialized, or fearful dogs.)
I’ve heard trainers go on and on, for 10 minutes at a time, about the need for really succulent foods to be used as treats (not just dried treats or kibble, no matter how food-motivated the pup or dog is at home), not feeding the dogs before class (so the pup won’t be full of food already and unable to physically eat much more), cutting the treats into tiny bits (so many of them can be fed in a class), including a variety (not just one type, so the dog doesn’t get bored), and bringing more than the owner thinks she might possibly need, because you will be using many, many tiny treats in a 50-minute beginning dog-training class.
Trainers make such a fuss over the value and type and variety and amount of treats because, again and again, owners arrive to class and are shocked—SHOCKED!—to discover that:
Their dogs are too distracted or stressed to take any but the most over-the-top delicious treats in the class setting.
Their dogs completely disregard the owners’ pouches full of cut-up hot dogs and, instead, go bananas for the trainer’s samples of stinky cheese, tuna bits, roast beef, and freeze-dried liver.
By the end of the class, when the trainer is saying, “Yes! That was great! Mark and reward that behavior!” and the owners often reply, “But I’m out of treats!”
To defend their choices, almost all owners will say, “But he works for kibble at home! I thought hot dogs would be ‘high-value’ enough! And I cut that hot dog into 20 pieces!”
(For what it’s worth, when I use hot dogs as training treats, I cut each one into about 64 pieces: Slice them lengthwise, roll it over halfway and slice it lengthwise again, so you have four long, skinny pieces. Then, holding it together, slice it across, about 16 times, so you end up with 64 or so tiny treats.)
By the end of a six-week class, though, any trainer worth her salt should be able to peek in every student’s bait bag and see a wide variety of scrumptious meats and cheeses and treats, all cut into tiny bits. Success!!
The best and highest-value treats
One of the main points that trainers will make during their first-class discussion is that owners should be prepared with a toy or food treat that is THE MOST valuable to the dog, for reinforcing behaviors that are particularly difficult for the dog, or for when the dog performs extraordinarily well in the face of a particularly difficult distraction.
I recently got a great reminder of how well it works to use especially yummy treats for behaviors that are especially critical.
I used to bring the dogs with me to an office about five miles from where I live; we drove into town most mornings. Last September, my husband and I completed construction of a small outbuilding on our property and then sold the house in town that I had been using as an office (and renting rooms to students) for the past eight years or so. Since then, the dogs and I commute about 50 yards from my back door to my new little office building. It’s great! And I love the new routine—with the exception of how it sometimes clashes with the routine of one of our neighbors.
We’ve been having an ongoing issue with a guy who lives up the road and walks his dog past my property every morning. For what reason, I do not know, but he stops at a certain spot by the fence in my front yard every day without fail, fishes a treat out of his pocket, and feeds it to his dog. And then he stands there for a minute or two, just hanging out. (We’ve introduced ourselves. He’s not just hanging out because he wants someone to talk to because sometimes he is chatty and sometimes he’s not. He sometimes will indicate he is listening to something with his earphones and just wave.)
Woody and Otto race each other when recalled. The competition actually improves the behavior. Image: Nancy Kerns
I don’t know whether it’s just the fact that he stops there (instead of walking or jogging or biking by, like most people do, unremarked upon by my dogs), or something about his dog, the treat-feeding, or the guy himself, but when my dogs are outside and they see him coming along down the rural road I live on, they immediately start barking and run to the fence. Something about his walking/stopping habit drives them nuts.
If no one were to respond to them, my dogs would undoubtedly run, barking, along every inch of the 600 feet or so of the fence line that the guy walks by. But this is a behavior I can’t live with (and don’t want them to practice), so the dogs are never outdoors without someone being alert and ready to call them back to the house at the very first bark we hear. I’m telling you, I don’t so much as step into the bathroom in the morning without calling the dogs indoors first—that’s how much I don’t want them to have a chance to practice charging toward the fence!
On the days that they happen to be outside when “the guy with the dog” comes along, I always call them in, and then give them something to reinforce their prompt response. Sometimes I have treats handy, but sometimes I might have to look in the fridge for some cheese or something. They have even gotten just plain old kibble a time or two.
But after we reviewed canned dog foods for the December issue, I had a small mountain of cans of delicious foods on hand. And if I heard the dogs alert, I whistle or call them, and run for the canned food stash. It didn’t take them long to learn to run from wherever they are on our two acres to where I am in less than the time it takes to pop the lid off a can when they hear one of my two recall cues. And their recalls were already pretty prompt! A consistent super reinforcer has resulted in a super duper recall. Best yet, now, though they still let out a few woofs when the see “the guy with the dog” coming down the road, they usually woof as they run to find me and my super high-value canned food reinforcer. This stuff really works!
Some pet food companies have formulated all of their products without meat meals; others tout their "meat first" formulations. As it turns out, neither of these tactics alone ensures a high-quality product.
A few years ago, we added a new column to the chart full of information that we publish in our annual “approved dry dog foods” list in the February issue. The column tabulates how many dog foods made by each company on the list were made with meat only, meat meal only, and/or a combination of meat and meat meal.
These tabulations do not constitute a judgment about the products listed; they are simply information for dog owners who understand the differences between the terms and the inferences that one can make from that information. But it has come to our attention that many of you aren’t aware of what, exactly, you can infer about a pet food company – or an individual product – from its inclusion of meat, meal, or both on its ingredients panel. So let’s clear this up!
NAMING AND SHAMING
First, though, you need to understand that, for the purposes of this article, when we use the generic phrases “meat” and “meat meal,” we are discussing named meats: chicken and chicken meal, pork and pork meal, beef and beef meal, etc. We don’t include any products on our “approved foods” lists that utilize unspecified protein sources on the ingredients label. When an unnamed animal protein source appears on the ingredients panel, the consumer has no idea of what mammal or type of poultry is in the can or bag.
To repeat: If you see one of the following phrases on the ingredients list of a dog food, you won’t see that dog food on our “approved foods” lists: meat, meat by-products, meat meal, meat and bone meal, poultry, poultry by-products, poultry meal, poultry by-products meal.
Each of these words or phrases have legal definitions when they appear on an ingredient panel. Lacking a word that indicates the species of animal has contributed the “meat” in question, the buyer has no way of knowing what they might be feeding their dog. Is it beef? Lamb? Pork? Chicken? Whatever leftover animal protein source the manufacturer can buy on sale? There is no way to know.
MEATY ISSUES
What we are discussing here and now, though, is the difference between named meats and their named meat meal corollaries. What’s the difference between chicken and chicken meal, beef and beef meal, etc.?
There is a critical clock ticking when it comes to fresh and frozen meats and meat by-products. Refrigeration is costly – and doesn’t hold off degradation of the ingredients for long. Freezing preserves meats longer, but is several factors more costly than refrigeration. Companies that use fresh meats in their pet foods need to get those ingredients into their mixers and extruders quickly; the more time it takes to get from the meat-processing plant to the food-manufacturing plant, the costlier the ingredients become.
If the meat products are not refrigerated or frozen, their quality is heavily impacted by the time and distance it takes them to travel to either a rendering company or a pet food manufacturer. The longer it takes them to be cooked in one form or another, the more bacterial decay and enzymatic breakdown will occur, affecting the quality of the protein and fat.
Pet food makers need to test and control a slew of quality-indicator parameters to make sure the meat-based ingredients are of sufficient quality to be safe, nutritious, and palatable. The quality of the product can be determined by the color and smell of the material, as well as analytical values for protein, available lysine, total lysine, methionine, pepsin digestibility (higher values are equated with higher protein content), peroxide value (higher values mean greater rancidity of the fats), OSI value (indicates the oxidative stability of the fats), ash (more on that in a minute), level and type of amino acids they contain.
MAKE A MEAL OF IT
[post-sticky note-id=’457802′]
Meat meals are made through a process called rendering. The process is named “rendering” as it renders volatile, degradable meats into a more stable form. The animal products are subjected to high temperatures, both in order to kill any pathogens and to drive a certain amount of moisture and fat away from the bone and tissue.
Once the product is in a lower-moisture form (around 10%), it will remain relatively stable at room temperatures for months. Meat meals can be shipped and stored for some time, until the pet food producer is ready to make some food.
For these reasons, the smaller the annual sales of a pet food brand and/or the less frequently a particular product will be made, the more likely it is that the product will be made with meat meals, rather than fresh meats. Meat meals made from exotic species that are in limited supply (perhaps only seasonally) are almost always supplied in the form of rendered meals.
Competent rendering companies can produce meat meals with a range of fat and “ash” content. Pet food companies stipulate how much fat and ash they will accept in the ingredients they buy from the renderer. In general, higher-fat ingredients will cost more than lower-fat ingredients. Lower-ash ingredients cost more than high-ash ingredients.
MEAT-ONLY FOODS
There are companies that have staked their entire reputations on the fact that they use only meats, never meat meals, in their dry dog foods. Is this truly a sign of higher quality?
Actually, there’s something to look out for in those “meat only” (meal-free) dry dog foods: the inclusion (and frequently, the over-representation) of plant-sourced proteins, which have a less desirable amino acid profile than meat (for dogs).
Remember, ingredients are listed on the label in order of pre-processing weight in the food’s formula. Meat contains about 70% moisture and is very heavy, so if it is included in a large enough quantity so as to appear first or second on the ingredient list, it can’t actually be supplying the majority of the product’s protein. This is because the meats that are used in pet food – which actually contain quite a bit of skin, fat, connective tissue, and bone – may contain as little as 8% protein.
In foods that contain both meat and meat meal high on the ingredients list, it’s the meat meal that supplies most of the protein in the product. If there is no meat meal in a dry dog food, it has to have some plant protein sources to boost the protein content to adequate levels. We couldn’t say, then, that we feel these meat-only dry dog food formulations are unequivocally better.
IMPOSSIBLE TO CONFIRM
We’re sorry to say it, but the factors that most affect the quality of the meat ingredients in dog foods are absolutely impossible to confirm. The source of the ingredients, whether they are kept chilled, the distance to the rendering plant or food-production facility, the amount of time it takes for those ingredients to be processed . . . none of these things are verifiable by consumers (or journalists, in case you were wondering).
Giant conglomerate food companies actually have an advantage here, in that many have rendering and/or pet food manufacturing facilities adjacent to their human food processing facilities, sparing the meat and meat by-products a long journey at the local air temperature.
That said, there must be smaller companies that have located their manufacturing facilities conveniently close to their animal-protein suppliers. And we know that some pet food makers do keep their meat ingredients chilled all the way between the slaughterhouse to their pet food mixing and extrusion or canning equipment. But these facts are difficult to verify and subject to change at a moment’s notice. Consumers (us included) are stuck with having to trust the reputation of the company and performance of the products themselves.
To continue reading this article or issue you must be a paid subscriber. Sign in
If you are logged in but cannot access this content, a) your subscription may have expired; b) you may have duplicate accounts (emails) in our system. Please check your account status hereorcontact customer service.
Immediate access to this article and 20+ years of archives.
Recommendations for the best dog food for your dog.
Dry food, homemade diets and recipes, dehydrated and raw options, canned food and more.
Brands, formulations and ingredients all searchable in an easy-to-use, searchable database.
Plus, you’ll receive training and care guidance to keep your dog healthy and happy. You’ll feed with less stress…train with greater success…and know you are giving your dog the care he deserves.
Subscribenow and save 72%! Its like getting 8 issues free!
I confess: I am absolutely fascinated with animal behavior and “training.” I think about it all the time – so much so, that I even think about most human-human interactions in terms of basic principles of animal behavior and learning theory. I’m not alone; many trainers I know happily describe themselves as “behavior geeks.”
However, I have observed that many dog owners are not all that interested in schedules of reinforcement or counter-conditioning; they don’t want to have to review their Psychology 101 textbooks or practice for hours to improve the timing of their marking and reinforcing skills. They don’t want to be dog trainers; they just want their dogs to behave better!
But give me two minutes, and I will try to convince any owner that she already is a dog trainer! “Look at the behavior you have already taught your dog!” (There must be something; almost everyone has taught their dog to at least sit on cue.) I’ll say, “Would you feel like a more accomplished trainer if you had taught a duck to sit on cue? Or your cat? And if so, what’s the difference? Why do we get upset or frustrated if we can’t easily teach our dog to do something, but we’d consider it a major accomplishment if we taught our cat or a duck to do the same thing?”
I have a theory: Because we have folded dogs into our lives so thoroughly, because they share our food and beds, we have come to expect much more human behavior from them. We are often dismayed when they display normal canine behavior such as barking, jumping, foraging for food, wanting to run (not walk) everywhere, etc. Maybe we didn’t mind (or even notice) all that doggy behavior 30 years ago, when dogs lived mostly outdoors (or in the garage) and perhaps even roamed freely during the day. But when they act like dogs in our homes – gosh!
Remember, as familiar as your dog is to you, as much as you love him, he’s not a human; in fact, he’s a different species of animal, not unlike a cat or duck. Make sure your expectations of his behavior are realistic – that you allow your dog to behave like a dog (at least sometimes) – and give yourself some credit for teaching him the things he has learned so far. You’re a trainer! Don’t resist learning a bit more, so you can be an even better trainer and enjoy your dog more.
CORRECTION
We regret that two titles were inadvertently left off our list of recommended DVDs in “How to Reform a Reactionary” in the January 2020 issue. They are:
Brown, Ali. “Reactive Dog Classes: On the Road to Reality.” Tanacacia Press, 2012.
Brown, Ali. “Scaredy Dog! Understanding and Rehabilitating Your Reactive Dog Seminar DVD.” Great Companions, 2005.
If you are a dog lover and you spend any amount of time on Facebook or any of those community website/discussion groups such as Nextdoor, you have probably seen some version of the post I saw this morning. Essentially: “I found this dog, he’s really nice, if you know someone who wants a dog please let me know, because I would hate to see him go to the shelter.”
I can’t tell you how crazy this makes me. I can’t help but imagine that one of MY beloved dogs has gotten lost, and I’m haunting the shelter every day, hoping someone has found my dog and brought him in so we can be reunited, but instead, because he’s so nice, someone is keeping him and trying to find him a home with someone else.
An even worse fate: someone “rescued” my lost dog – he was safe in their home – but then he “got away” from them in a panic. He’s now back at risk and perhaps even more wary of strangers than before, all because the finder didn’t want to take him to the shelter.
What Actually Happens to Lost Dogs at Most Shelters
I know that people believe they are saving a dog’s life by not taking him to the shelter. They automatically assume that any dog who ends up at the shelter is at high risk of being put to death. The thing is, in my community – in many communities today – that is really old information. Like, decades old. Any friendly dog who is brought into my local shelter is going to end up on the adoption row – and not all that quickly. He would likely spend at least two weeks or more among all the other “found” dogs before being made available for adoption. And if his owner was looking for him, this is THE place they would look – especially if they didn’t have a computer, weren’t on Facebook, weren’t reading the Nextdoor.com posts, perhaps didn’t even speak English.
I volunteer for my local shelter, and I see how many dogs are brought in as strays, I see how many dogs get euthanized (and there are some). I see that the shelter does not “euthanize for space” and no dogs, even fairly aggressive, hostile dogs – get euthanized in anything like the minimum hold time. In my area, there are people who own dogs who are aggressive to strangers but who are also beloved members of their household (scary but true), so even dogs who show a fair amount of aggression to the shelter staff are held for far more than the minimum time that our state requires they be held, in case their owner turns up. Friendly dogs absolutely will be held for weeks, then put up for adoption.
This is knowledge that I have gained with my own eyes, by volunteering in the shelter. What if I didn’t have the opportunity to learn this? What if I moved to a town and just didn’t know? Well, I would call the shelter and ask for information: “If I find a stray dog, and I bring him to the shelter, how much time would he have before he were at risk of being euthanized? And what can I do to ensure that he not be euthanized, if he’s not claimed by an owner?” I have actually seen the notation on cage cards at my shelter many times: “If not claimed by owner or adopted, (Name of person who found the dog, phone number) will adopt this dog.”
Other Ways to Reunite a Dog and Its Owner
What if you live in a community that is overrun with strays, and the shelter in that community kills dogs on day 5 (or whatever)? Again, you could – and should – at least take the dog to the shelter and have him scanned for a microchip. Then the shelter staff can take his photo and enter his information into their system as a found dog and you can still take him home (and, I hope, not allow him to escape again). This way, if someone comes looking for him at the shelter – which is the one place that most people will look for their lost dogs – the dog and owner stand a better chance of being reunited.
There are many more things you could do to try to find a “found” dog’s rightful owners: putting up signs with a LARGE photo of the dog, is perhaps the most helpful. (I will never forget my brother’s story: When his Ridgeback-mix, Hannah, took off once and hadn’t come back overnight, he busied himself the next morning with putting up “Lost Dog” signs, and came across a guy putting up “Found Dog” signs with his dog’s picture on them. He followed the guy home and said that Hannah looked very surprised and a little embarrassed when he came in the guy’s house to recover her.)
But please, whatever you do: Don’t just rehome the dog!
Hang around with enough dog owners, and inevitably you will hear someone say to their distracted or recalcitrant dog, “Sit! Sit! Sit! SIT!” I’m pretty sure that, in the minds of most dogs, the cue for sit isn’t “Sit!” but actually, “Sit! Sit! Sit! SIT!”
Then there is my other favorite: “Sit! Sit! Sit! I said, SIT DOWN!”
In my head, I always imagine a smart aleck of a dog saying back to his owner, “Well, which is it? Sit or down?”
Clearing up the Confusion
The word “down” is rife with problems as a cue. Some of us use it to tell our dogs to lie down. Some of us use it to tell our dogs not to jump on people. Some of us use it to tell our dogs to get off the couch! And some people use it in all three situations! What’s a dog to do? Heck if I know; I always have to look it up to know if I should be saying “lay down” or “lie down”! You’d think after 30 years of editing, I could get this one right!
Then there is the whole issue of confusing hand signals: When asking for the “down” behavior, Dad snaps his fingers and points at the ground with an index finger but Mom bends all the way over and touches the floor.
If you are part of a multiple-member dog-loving family, hold a meeting and ask every single person, one at a time, to cue the family dogs for “sit” and “down.” Take video of each person cueing the dogs and of the dogs’ reaction, because I assure you that hilarity will ensue as it becomes apparent that each person in the household does it a little differently, and the dog’s reaction will vary.
For best results, make sure you are presenting consistent cues – whether they are verbal, hand signals, body language, or a combination – for each discrete behavior to your dog every time. Unless you really don’t mind repeating yourself. J
Readers, dog owners, can I ask
you a question? Or, actually, a few related questions:
If you had to put a dollar
figure on it, what would your dog’s life be worth to you? How would you justify
that figure?
And, for those of you who have actually HAD TO put a dollar figure on your dog’s life in a lawsuit, or who received compensation after your dog’s life was taken by another – whether through negligence or cruelty or whatever: How much compensation were you able to receive?
Another dog lost his life unnecessarily
I’m asking these questions as I
ponder the story of a friend’s pup, who was killed as he lay, on leash, at a
public park, by two off-leash dogs, in front of my friend, his nine-year-old
daughter, her friend, and other children and parents. I just can’t fully fathom
the emotional damage done to my friend and especially his daughter, who had
just completed a “puppy kindergarten” training class with her beloved dog. My
friend’s daughter, an active, athletic girl, has told her dad she doesn’t want
to play at the park anymore, it hurts too much. Is there a price you can put on
this pain?
The owner of the attacking dog had released his dogs to run off-leash, in violation of the local leash laws. In my mind, that makes him liable for a bit more in damages, should a suit find him responsible for the loss of my friend’s pup and damages for the bites my friend sustained as he tried to save his pup from the aggressors. But the owner of those dogs stayed at the scene and took responsibility for the dogs, and, in fact, surrendered the dog most responsible for the puppy’s death to the responding animal control officer and requested that the dog be euthanized. Should that act reduce his legal liability?
What does the law say about this?
It’s my understanding that, in this country, dogs are legal property, and their loss is not treated or compensated-for as the loss of a human family member would be. But, as I sit here looking at photos my friend sent me of his happy daughter and her puppy at Christmas, and of the slain puppy and his attackers at the park a few weeks later, waiting for an animal control officer to arrive, I just can’t square the price of a puppy’s purchase with the loss my friend’s family has suffered.
I don’t even know if my friend will pursue a lawsuit or settlement, and of course there is no way of knowing how a judge might rule on such a case, or whether the marauding dogs’ owner feels any responsibility or has a homeowner’s insurance policy or some other way to attempt to compensate my friend for his family’s loss and suffering. I’m just so sad, thinking about it. What is a dog’s life actually worth today?
*A note from Nancy Kerns
In response to the many comments left by our readers, I wanted to state the following:
This is a really upsetting story, I know; I had not yet even met my friend’s puppy, but had seen pictures of his daughter and the pup together, and yet, as I have been discussing the tragedy with my friend and thinking about it – imagining it – I have been in tears several times a day. Awful!
However, I really am hoping to get more answers to the questions at the outset of the post. If you *could* name the price that you would accept for the loss of your dog, how would you set a value on his life? And, more reality-based, if you or someone you know had a dog who was killed through no fault of your own, and if you sought or received compensation for your loss, how was that compensation determined?
Also, I would like it to be known that the attacking dogs were not pit bulls – and their breed is beside the point. I have removed a post or two that was targeting pit bulls, as the breed was in no way relevant in this case. These dogs had been let off leash in a public park that has a leash law, near a children’s playground – that is the point here.
I was flabbergasted when I read the advice of a prominent veterinary nutritionist that dog owners should do themselves a favor and “stop reading the ingredient list” of their dogs’ food. The basis of this suggestion seemed to be that ordinary dog owners are just too likely to favor foods that sound delicious but are not nutritious over less delicious-sounding products made by more reputable companies. Which, if you continued to follow along for a definition of “reputable,” had enough qualifiers as to include only the largest companies in the country, if not the world.
Sigh.
Well, I have faith in our readers; after all, you seem to be able to feed yourselves! Jokes aside, it’s absolutely true that there are companies that are using every marketing trick in the book to sell more dog food – by stacking the ingredients’ lists of their foods with trendy ingredients, giving the products colorful names (such as “Cowboy Cookout,” “Love at First Bark,” “Pacific Stream”), and making liberal use of bright photos of ripe fruits, fresh vegetables, and glistening steaks (even when the corresponding ingredients are actually powdered fruits, dried vegetables or pulp, and meat meal). And it has worked! Many of these products have gained significant market share by appealing to dog owners’ appetites.
But with a little guidance, we’re confident that you can learn to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. We’ve given you tons of direction about the notes you should bring with you when you shop, what to look for on the labels, how to identify low-quality products, and more. Plus, our “approved dry foods list” contains dozens of companies that make good foods; you’ve got this!
Also in this issue: Don’t miss “Dogs in the Workplace” which contains advice from a dog trainer who works in the office of a dog-related (nonprofit) business about bringing your dogs to work. A long-time contributor to WDJ, Stephanie Colman’s training and dog-management advice is always very clear, positive, and effective. This is a helpful article for those who would like to bring their dogs to work – or for those who would like to give some friendly advice to a co-worker who brings naughty, unmanaged dogs to their workplace.
And finally, a groundbreaking piece from our Training Editor Pat Miller, “Socially Conscious Sheltering.” Miller explains how the historic models for rescue and animal shelter management are dysfunctional, and introduces a progressive new model that can save dogs’ lives and keep the public safe from dangerous dogs, too.
Shelters who adhere to the SCS tenets pledge to enhance the human-animal bond through safe placements and post-adoption support. As just one example: Families will not be sent home with a dog who is less than perfectly comfortable with children, and follow-up calls will be made to ensure that all parties are still getting along and happy a few weeks post-adoption.
One might imagine that the world of animal sheltering would be filled with people who care about animals and want to save lives – all hearts and flowers, a community united with a common purpose of saving animals and ensuring their quality of life. Would that it were so.
In fact, it’s often the exact opposite, with warring camps of activists holding widely divergent opinions about how best to care for and rehome the dogs, cats, and other species who end up in animal shelters. The introduction and promotion of “no-kill shelters” in the early 1990s only heightened the level of acrimony among animal protection professionals and grassroots rescue groups alike, creating conflict and controversy that sometimes hinders efforts to save homeless animals.
In 2019, six women, several of whom were chief executive officers of animal shelters in Colorado, got together to discuss their animal welfare beliefs, including shelter practices. All of them believe that our society is at a critical point in shaping the future of animal welfare. They agreed that while most people mean well in their attempts to change public policy around how we care for homeless pets, sometimes good intentions lead to unintended suffering for the very pets that people are trying to protect. And they sought to define and describe a modern model for socially conscious animal welfare.
Out of that conversation came the Socially Conscious Sheltering model, which they then shared with shelter CEOs from across the United States for their feedback. They sought input from shelters in different kinds of communities, with varying intake policies and levels of community engagement. The insight was incorporated into the fundamental goals of Socially Conscious Sheltering (SCS), and a website (scsheltering.org) was created. The SCS website describes SCS as “a framework that allows each of us to understand our role in creating best outcomes for pets. This concept is based on respectful treatment of animals. It’s about placing every healthy and safe animal that ends up in a shelter or rescue. It’s about transparency and leadership. It’s about thoughtful public policy. It’s about safe communities.”
As a long-time shelter supporter and former shelter manager myself, I am excited about the SCS model and hopeful that its guidance will improve outcomes for animal wards of shelters everywhere.
HOW WE GOT HERE
I have been observing – and participating in – the ever-evolving world of animal sheltering for the past 45 years. There are many things related to animal welfare that have gotten better – for both homeless animals and people who work in rescue and sheltering – and some things that have gotten worse in that time. My tremendous excitement about the promise of the Socially Conscious Sheltering model has a lot to do with what I have witnessed in the recent history and evolution of the sheltering field.
In 1976, I began volunteering at the Marin Humane Society (MHS), a private non-profit shelter with a contract to perform animal control services for all of Marin County, California. A few months later, I accepted a position as a customer service representative – the first paid position of several that I accepted at MHS over the next 20 years.
For my last decade there, I was Director of Operations, responsible for keeping our statistics as well as directing our Field Services, Animal Care, and Customer Service departments, so I was acutely aware of the number of animals we took in at the shelter, their quality of life while in residence with us, and what ultimately happened to them (returned to owner, adopted, or euthanized).
At the beginning of my tenure at MHS, the shelter took in about 15,000 animals per year – strays, owner-surrender, neglect and abuse cases – none were ever turned away. Marin was (and is) a wealthy, well-educated community. We were well supported by our community and better situated than many shelters to provide excellent care for the animals who were brought through our doors. And even though this number was far better than many other shelters at that time (and is better than some shelters even today), we ultimately euthanized about 40% of them.
In the ’80s and ’90s, a number of societal and public policy changes helped progressively decrease the number of animals that found themselves in shelters and the number of animals who were euthanized there. Leash laws and licensing decreased the number of free-roaming pets. The animal welfare world amped up its spay/neuter education efforts nationwide, and many states passed laws requiring shelters to surgically neuter all animals before they were adopted. Microchips increased the number of stray pets that could be returned to their owners.
By the time I left Marin to launch my Peaceable Paws dog training venture in 1996, MHS’s intake numbers had dropped to fewer than 6,000, with a comparable decrease in our euthanasia numbers. Nationally, intake and euthanasia numbers had also decreased.
This is right around the time that the practices and policies of a high-profile animal shelter in the county next to Marin started a revolution in the animal sheltering field – a well-intentioned revolution, to be sure, but one with unfortunate antithetical consequences.
THE “NO KILL” MOVEMENT
In the late 1980s, Richard Avanzino, the director of the San Francisco SPCA, began steering that organization away from the standard model of providing animal control services as well as sheltering and adoption services. Avanzino had been working to innovate solutions for improving the live release rates of the shelter, including building a network of foster providers, instituting a pit bull training and adoption program, paying owners of pit bulls to neuter their dogs, paying people to neuter stray and feral cats, and more. But he wanted to do even more to get the SF SPCA out of the job of euthanizing any animals, ever. He put the city on notice that his organization wouldn’t renew its contracts for animal control by 1989, though it intended to continue to shelter and find homes for animals.
[post-sticky note-id=’442912′]
The city of San Francisco had to build a new city agency – the Department of Animal Care and Control – to take over animal control. In 1994, the SF SPCA announced that the organization was going to stop killing any “adoptable animals.” The SF SPCA was dubbed with the immediately popular appellation “no-kill shelter” and San Francisco was declared a “no-kill city.” It was a public relations home run near and far. From the very beginning, the public loved the idea of no-kill shelters – without understanding the nuances built into the definition.
Most members of the public were not aware, however, that not all animals brought to a no-kill shelter would survive. No-kill was described by Avanzino and the rapidly increasing number of no-kill devotees as practices that preserved the lives of all “healthy and treatable” animals and euthanized only those whose problems were deemed “unhealthy and untreatable.”
An obvious problem lay in the ability of shelters to interpret “unhealthy and untreatable” quite variably. Avanzino promoted the use of the standards pet owners would use if the problems occurred in their own pets; most of us would consider kennel cough or a broken leg as “treatable,” for instance. But these terms were interpreted in very disparate ways by shelters of different means and levels of commitment to no-kill principles.
What people often fail to understand (and what many shelters fail to communicate to their supporters) is that there are two types of shelters. “Open admission shelters” take in every animal brought to them; some are required to do so by virtue of contracts they have signed with a local government. In contrast, “limited admission shelters” may turn away animals that they know they will be unable to make available for adoption or that they do not have room for.
Many (perhaps most) limited-admission shelters were able to claim that they were no-kill, since they only rarely took in an animal that proved to be untreatable or unsafe to adopt. Far fewer open-admission shelters were able to make legitimate no-kill claims – and in the competition for donation dollars from animal lovers who didn’t want to give money to so-called “kill shelters,” this really hurt.
Shelters that could not or would not define themselves as no-kill were soon faced with hostility and a withdrawal of public support, causing many to try to meet the definition and make no-kill claims. Some open admission shelters could do so only through illegitimate means, such as warehousing an ever-increasing and untenable number of animals, wanton placement of animals to any other organizations (reputable and capable or not) that would take them, and adopting out animals with unsafe or borderline behavior issues.
Soon, all around the country, open-admission shelters began to bear an increased burden of accepting and caring for animals that no-kill shelters wouldn’t take – a costly burden, since caring for unhealthy animals requires greater resources. Simultaneously, these shelters began to feel the financial pinch as donation dollars were being diverted to no-kill organizations from former supporters.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
While the intention of the no-kill ethos is admirable, there have been some unfortunate consequences of the policies.
It’s been noted that more animals (especially dogs), previously recognized as behaviorally unsuitable for adoption, are being placed in the homes of adopters who are not adequately informed, experienced, or equipped to handle them safely. I have a thick file of news stories about dogs with bite histories who were adopted into homes where they later caused injuries and even fatalities.
Dog training and behavior professionals are in widespread and ever-growing agreement that we are seeing an increasing number of clients who are bringing us dogs who should never have been adopted to them in the first place. These are caring dog owners who had no idea what they were getting themselves into, sometimes because the shelter simply didn’t make a careful match in their eagerness to place the dog in a home, and sometimes because the shelter deliberately withheld information that would have helped the adopter realize this wasn’t the dog for them.
Twenty years ago, when I would express my opposition to the no-kill movement at seminars while speaking in support of responsible sheltering, I was often met with puzzled stares and sometimes open argument. Today I see a crowd full of nodding heads and often receive resounding rounds of applause from other training and behavior professionals who are encountering significant and dangerous challenges from client dogs adopted from organizations that are more concerned with their live release rate than with good, safe adoptions.
Additionally, a phenomenon that has required the creation of a new label – “rescue hoarding” – has risen to epidemic levels in the past decade. It’s a problem that can’t be traced precisely to no-kill’s door, but the perpetrators tend to be acquainted.
Once upon a time, if you heard about an animal hoarder, the person was usually a little old lady who lived in an apartment with 30-plus cats. Today, the vast majority of animal hoarding stories in the news involve rescue hoarders – people or groups who may have started out as legitimate rescuers, but who ended up completely overwhelmed with too many animals to care for and not enough resources to do so.
These are sometimes 501(c)3 non-profit rescue groups and shelters, sometimes individuals pretending to be 501(c)3 groups or shelters, and sometimes just individuals who hold strongly to the conviction that any life is better than no life. The common denominator is that many, or even most, have gotten their animals from shelters that are handing off animals willy-nilly to almost anyone, in their efforts to call themselves no-kill. Dogs in these rescue hoarder situations are often badly malnourished, sick and dying, or already dead.
TIME FOR A NEW MODEL
The original architects of the SCS model were six women, all of whom were Presidents and CEOs of shelters or veterinary organizations in Colorado. They started a conversation about the need for a new guidance document for sheltering in January 2018, when they were all in attendance at a sheltering-related conference.
In March 2019, however, they all had a front-row seat to an event that provided the impetus to formalize their shared opinions and values regarding animal sheltering into what have become eight tenets of SCS.
It started with an inspection by the Department of Agriculture of an open-admission shelter in Pueblo, Colorado, which led to the resignation of the shelter director and ultimately, closure of the shelter. The first and subsequent inspections of the facility found numerous animals suffering with untreated injuries and illnesses, health records for the animals nonexistent or in disarray, inadequate sanitation, treatment cabinets stocked with seriously out-of-date and unlabeled medications, intact animals of the opposite sex housed together, dogs who were being quarantined in bite cases having opportunities to come into contact with front desk staff, and more.
Just part of a group of more than 100 dogs seized following an investigation of a “small dog rescue” in Northern California. Many of the dogs were sick or had skin problems, all had internal and external parasites, and most were extremely thin. All had been obtained by the “rescue” from shelters and were advertised for “adoption” for fees of several hundred dollars or more.
All of the surviving animals at the shelter had to be transferred to other area shelters, including those run by the founders of SCS. When the Pueblo shelter closed, the organization that had been running the shelter, PAWS for Life, issued a statement that read in part, “There were significant hurdles in fulfilling the mission to be a no-kill, full-access public shelter to save lives that otherwise might have been lost under prior management.” (The irony of the suffering experienced by the animals who didn’t have timely access to veterinary care seemed to have been lost on the managers responsible.)
The founders of SCS released a group statement following the Pueblo shelter closure. It read, in part, “The suffering that happened at Community Animal Services of Pueblo, operated by PAWS for Life, is unacceptable. In an effort to adhere to a damaging local ordinance, it appears animals were allowed to suffer and die from their illnesses and injuries rather than being humanely euthanized. The animal welfare community’s priority is to ensure these animals are properly cared for and that they are protected from situations like this in the future….
“This is a regretful example of how the no-kill movement, when taken to the extreme, preys upon compassionate people’s desire to protect animals. Animals deserve respect, nurturing, support, and it is never acceptable to allow them to suffer. Our entire community is deeply saddened by this situation.”
On the SCS website, its founders admit that, in general, homeless animals in Colorado already enjoy “incredible” outcomes; the entire state enjoys an average 90% live release rate. But the founders wanted to address the fact that attempts to reach and maintain a zero kill status often lead to situations like the one in Pueblo, with under-funded shelters manned by over-burdened staff, leading to increased animal suffering.
The SCS founders released their tenets and published an explanatory website (SCSheltering.org) in March 2019. By following their suggested guidelines, the SCS founders say, shelters can achieve high live-release rates while also ensuring that no animal is allowed to suffer and the communities are kept safe from dangerous animals.
EIGHT TENETS OF SCS
Each of these tenets addresses common breakdowns where implementation of the no-kill model fails to adequately address the needs and welfare of all the animals in a given community or consider the safety of human caretakers, foster homes, and adopters. I applaud the remarkable steps this document takes toward repairing the significant flaws of no-kill. My comments follow each tenet and appear in italics.
1. Place every healthy and safe animal. Every single one. Healthy is defined as either having no signs of clinical disease or evidence of disease that a veterinarian determines has a good or excellent prognosis for a comfortable life. Safe means that the animal has not exhibited behavior that is likely to result in severe injury or death to another animal or person.
This tenet maintains the original stated goal of no-kill to place all healthy, adoptable animals, but adds critically important definitions of the terms “healthy” and “safe” and emphasizes the importance of “safe.”
2. Ensure every unwanted or homeless pet has a safe place to go for shelter and care. An animal’s opportunity to be nurtured, healed, and rehomed should not depend on their age or condition – every community must have a shelter that accepts all animals brought to it. It is unacceptable to turn animals away because they are too old, sick, or broken.
Shelter managers should keep dogs like this in mind when they maintain a waiting list in order for people to surrender their pets. This dog was surrendered too late; she died of an infection before treatment could take effect.
This addresses an element totally overlooked by the no-kill model – and is one of my favorites. Communities must provide a safe place for all the homeless animals in their jurisdiction. In an attempt to prevent overcrowding, some shelters have begun to maintain waiting lists, some months-long, for people who want or need to surrender their animals. This sometimes results in animals being dumped and left to starve or be hit by cars as they attempt to fend for themselves – and this is simply unacceptable.
3. Assess the medical and behavioral needs of homeless animals and ensure these needs are thoughtfully addressed. Animals housed in shelters and rescues must be assessed for disease and injury and must have all medical conditions addressed so the animal does not suffer. These animals must also have their behavioral needs assessed and met, including enrichment sufficient to make them comfortable and to prevent self-destructive, obsessive-compulsive coping behaviors.
Addressing medical and behavioral needs of shelter animals in a timely manner should go without saying, but sadly, it doesn’t – as evidenced by the Pueblo experience. I wish that example was a rare anomaly, but unfortunately it is all too common.
4. Align shelter policy with the needs of the community. Does the community allow trap-neuter-return programs? If so, offer them. Will members of your community adopt animals with chronic disease, and are they willing to assume the time and expense of managing that disease? If so, with full disclosure, place them in these homes. Socially Conscious Shelters listen to their communities.
Every community is different. It’s a challenge for shelters to be able to meet the desires of the community and make ethical and humane choices for, and meet the needs of, the animals in their care.
5. Alleviate suffering and make appropriate euthanasia decisions. Compassionate euthanasia is a gift. It is not acceptable to let a terminally ill, suffering animal languish in a cage until it dies naturally when compassionate euthanasia can ease that endless pain. It is not acceptable to house a known dangerous animal who cannot be safely placed in the community for years until it goes crazy in a cage. Each euthanasia decision is difficult, and every decision must consider the welfare of the individual animal.
This tenet articulates what seems so obvious to many animal lovers: It’s our duty to alleviate animal suffering when and where we can. Compassionate euthanasia decisions are far too often blocked by those who believe that any life is better than no life. Sometimes, those standing in the way of these decisions are shelter volunteers and even Board members.
6. Enhance the human-animal bond through safe placements and post-adoption support. Integrating a living being into a new home can be difficult. As adoption agencies, Socially Conscious Shelters have a responsibility to support the new family. This can mean post-adoption behavior advice, classes for new pet caregivers, addressing shelter-related medical needs and being willing to accept the animal back if the pet and the family are not a good fit.
This also means not placing animals into homes that disrupt the human-animal bond by injuring children, other pets, and other people. There are many behavior issues that can be addressed through behavior modification and positive experiences. There are other behaviors that are dangerous and that cannot be mitigated.
This is another important point – one that is often missed by shelters that are focused solely on their live release rate. Some of the resources directed toward bringing in animals from other jurisdictions (and other countries) might be better spent providing support for the animals already in the shelter’s own community.
7. Consider the health and wellness of each animal and each community when transferring animals. Moving dogs and cats from communities that do not have homes available for them to communities where people are actively seeking pets saves lives.
However, bringing pets into a community is a responsibility. It is a responsibility to the animals already living in that community to not bring in infectious diseases that would make them sick. It is a responsibility to those living within the community to bring in animals that will live in harmony. And there is a responsibility to the community from which animals are being moved to impact that community’s animal welfare struggles through humane education and spay and neuter programs.
There are documented cases of serious canine diseases being moved north from southern shelters and into the U.S. from other countries, as well as dogs from unsocialized or rural backgrounds suffering immense stress and never habituating to city life. Some transports are in violation of interstate laws that require veterinary checks and health certificates.
8. Foster a culture of transparency, ethical decision-making, mutual respect, continual learning, and collaboration. Socially Conscious Shelters are committed to full transparency. This can include reporting accurate statistics, sharing policies, and fully and quickly admitting when mistakes are made. Integrity must be the foundation of all decisions. Every shelter can learn something from every other shelter – it is important to be curious and to share innovative solutions to common problems. Only by working together can we ensure the best outcomes for all animals.
This is critical. How can we have a prayer of a chance of knowing how shelter programs are working and how the animals are faring if we aren’t transparent?
SCS GATHERS MOMENTUM
Thanks to the leaders who innovated SCS, the animal sheltering community now has a model to look to that supports the placement of every adoptable animal, while at the same time recognizing that not every animal is adoptable.
The responsibility for shelters to do everything in their power to make appropriate adoptions is great. The safety of the dogs, the adopting families, and even their neighbors is at stake.
The Eight Tenets of Socially Conscious Sheltering was released in March 2019, and the model was swiftly embraced by many other shelters in Colorado, as well as the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. By August, shelters all over the country had also adopted Socially Conscious Sheltering, including shelters in Los Angeles, Davis County (UT), Santa Cruz County (CA), St. Louis (MO), Ventura County (CA), Berks County (PA), Nebraska, Cleveland (OH), Michigan, Jessamine County (KY), Loudon County (VA), and dozens of other organizations.
Are the animal protection, sheltering, and rescue organizations in your area on board with Socially Conscious Sheltering? If you don’t know, contact them and find out. If they are not, you can help them learn about it and help them understand why they should be. Encourage your animal loving friends to do the same. Educate and pressure your local government officials and organizational board members to get on board. We all want a better life for the animals in our world. You can help make it happen.
Myka, Sanchez’ calm, friendly Havanese, has been going to the office most of her life and is a positive example of dogs in the workplace.
On-Site LaserMedic is a dog-friendly laser printer repair company in Chatsworth, California. Roxanna Sanchez, the organization’s chief operating officer, has been bringing her dogs to work for 15 years and is responsible for overseeing office-dog privileges for On-Site’s 23-person staff. Currently, four employees, including Sanchez, bring their dogs to work.
“The dogs brings happiness and a sense of calmness to the office,” Sanchez says. “Our customer service center can get bombarded with challenges throughout the day, and the dogs are good for the soul.”
Sanchez helps set up employees for success with their dogs in the office by reminding them to create an environment where the dog will be comfortable. This makes it less likely the employee will be distracted by a dog who is uncomfortable and acts out in order to get his needs met. Should an employee’s pet present a challenge, she’ll request that the dog take a break from the office; she’ll also refer the team to area trainers and is willing to reevaluate the dog at a later time. For some dogs, a little extra training makes all the difference. For others, including one of Sanchez’ own prior dogs, coming to the office just isn’t the right choice for the dog.
“I had a Rottweiler who came to the office with me all the time as a young puppy. She loved it,” says Sanchez. “But as she matured, she became suspicious of certain people and certain things, and I realized she wasn’t comfortable at work. I stopped bringing her.”
Throughout her 19-year history with On-Site, Sanchez has successfully introduced nine of her own pet dogs to the workplace, one or two at a time. She currently rotates between Myka, a 12-year-old Havanese; Bree, a 4-year-old, mid-sized mixed breed; and Ruuk, a 2-year-old, 10-pound mixed breed.
“We’re very fortunate to have a professional family atmosphere where our dogs are welcomed and appreciated,” she said. “So long as you set and hold employees to clear expectations, we’ve found dogs in the workplace to be a great asset to the organization.”
