Mr. Biggles is being put to sleep tomorrow

[luvofallhorses]

To anyone that is convinced that Mr Biggles should be rehomed; most likely she would even pay the shipping to send him to you if you are willing and able to take on the responsibility. Do we hear any offers?

someone would take him if we didn't already have our own animals to deal with. I feel bad for Mr. Biggles. and what doesn't make sense to me is that if you take Mr. Biggles back to the shelter, you have to bring the other dog back, too. that has never happened when we adopted out 2 dogs together, ever.

[Catty1]

Jess CAN return just one dog to the shelter if that dog has a problem. That's what I understood, anyway.

And note:

1. Both Jess and Chad are getting help for their own problems. (See "General", or look for the link posted early on here.

2. These dogs, I believe, were adopted with the best of intentions.

3. Even if - IF - this is not a suitable home for dogs, we have the situation as it is now.

4. I am sure that Jess will have the sense to discuss this with whatever vet she is taking Biggles to. The vet may know of an alternative - even a JRT rescue, which may be an option, Jess.

I have seen posts from pet owners here where their home situation is anything but good with the other humans there. Are you going to rehome your pet because you fight with the humans there?

This is not for everyone - but remember, when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you.

Biggles bit TWICE...and the second one was an attack. NOT a nip or bit - an attack.

Just my two cents.

Jess, hugs...and hug Biggles for me. I know you will talk to your vet, and this is very hard.

I suggest we pray for EVERYONE in the home, 4-legged and 2-legged.

[Muddy4paws]

Of all the posts insisting that mr Biggles should be re-homed, there wasn't even one poster who actually offered to take on the responsibility.

Everyone has perfectly valid reasons why they can't take in a dog that has a history of biting and being returned to the shelter more than once. Not to mention a dog whose bites have escalated to full on attacks. Yet as far as the nay sayers are concerned Jess's reasons are completely without merit and even cruel. Why are anyone elses reasons more credible than hers? The answer of course is because they're not living with the problem.

The real ones to blame here are Mr Biggles original owners who put up with his behavior and "worked around the problems" instead of taking responsible action to correct them. The same owners that dumped him after 8 years because "working around the problem" only made things worse until poor Mr. Biggles is now unfit to live in society.

To anyone that is convinced that Mr Biggles should be rehomed; most likely she would even pay the shipping to send him to you if you are willing and able to take on the responsibility. Do we hear any offers?

I feel like im stating the obvious here, If you get an animal from rescue you have to respect its background and work with the dog! not give up at the first hurdle. Alot of dogs that go in rescue do have problems which is why there are there in the first place King should of known that and should be willing to help that poor dog through it all rather than just giving up. The dog has been placed in a brand new enviroment and to me it doesnt sound like a calm enviroment at all! I think its such a shame

[king2005]

Of all the posts insisting that mr Biggles should be re-homed, there wasn't even one poster who actually offered to take on the responsibility.

Everyone has perfectly valid reasons why they can't take in a dog that has a history of biting and being returned to the shelter more than once. Not to mention a dog whose bites have escalated to full on attacks. Yet as far as the nay sayers are concerned Jess's reasons are completely without merit and even cruel. Why are anyone elses reasons more credible than hers? The answer of course is because they're not living with the problem.

The real ones to blame here are Mr Biggles original owners who put up with his behavior and "worked around the problems" instead of taking responsible action to correct them. The same owners that dumped him after 8 years because "working around the problem" only made things worse until poor Mr. Biggles is now unfit to live in society.

To anyone that is convinced that Mr Biggles should be rehomed; most likely she would even pay the shipping to send him to you if you are willing and able to take on the responsibility. Do we hear any offers?

I thank you for that post, but please now understand why I'm getting upset. I'm using your post more as an example as to why I'm upset, not attacking you or anything. Please don't be offended, but I don't think you will (if I can word it properly, which isn't easy)

But you just said "To anyone that is convinced that Mr Biggles should be rehomed" I clearly did stat that in the contract I cannot rehome the dogs.

Seeing posts that keep saying things that I cannot control is getting very flustering, which in the end can make me upset as I keep trying to explain I have no control over that, but no one listens & gets mad at me for not doing what they tell me to do, when they themselves have not taken the time to a) read the whole thread to insure they are up to date.. or ... b) Missed that post (not your fault I know, I do it too, but its still flustering to both parties) & when more then 1 person does it, it gets to the point of GAH!!!

I don't think it came out the way I wanted it to.. but I hope my point has gotten across (its a good point!!!!)...

[areias]

To anyone that is convinced that Mr Biggles should be rehomed; most likely she would even pay the shipping to send him to you if you are willing and able to take on the responsibility. Do we hear any offers?

I wish I could take him. I would take him except there is a 7 year old and a 10 year old and their friends in and out of the house. Unfortunately it dosen't sound like there is much time to find someone for him, and not on my end.

[Catty1]

someone would take him if we didn't already have our own animals to deal with.

Many people with animals here have rehomed another animal. That statement doen't wash with me.

This is not the 'first hurdle' either....Biggles was nippy, that was being worked with and improved...but Biggles has bitten TWICE.

Again, between Jess and her vet is the best thing, I think.

[luvofallhorses]

I didn't mean any harm by that statement, honestly. I meant other people have their own animals and cannot afford another animal like I can't.. THAT is what I meant. I wish Mr. Biggles the best of luck.

[king2005]

someone would take him if we didn't already have our own animals to deal with. I feel bad for Mr. Biggles. and what doesn't make sense to me is that if you take Mr. Biggles back to the shelter, you have to bring the other dog back, too. that has never happened when we adopted out 2 dogs together, ever.

It was part of our contract. Both dogs must stay together period. So if we return one, they both have to go. I have no control over it, so when 1 is returned to attacking they both are PTS.. But because Mr. Biggles attacked I can pay to have him PTS & I can be there while he goes to the RB

[Muddy4paws]

This thread was always going to cause a stir and I dont think im alone in thinking this but most of kings threads do.

I think biggles has a chance but not with king. I'm sorry but I dont think you are experienced enough for a dog like this and I think the shelter done a crap job when it come to rehoming these 2 dogs.

If the vet suggests a behaviourists are you willing to work with them?

[applesmom]

Even after a lifetime with dogs, living alone and not having a dog at the moment; I'll have to be honest and say I wouldn't even consider taking on Mr Biggles and his problems.

Not while there are millions of loving well adjusted dogs being put to death every year!!!!

Mr Biggles is a victim, but so are the many individuals that tried to provide him with a loving home only to be forced to dump him back in the shelter again. There is no way of knowing how many people he has bitten in his eight years. It was just a matter of time, Mr. Biggles original owners sealed his fate years ago.

[Lori Jordan]

In the states home owners insurance policies can be cancelled if you have a known agressive dog. In the states also you can face personal lawsuits from a person bitten, whether friend or delivery person, and have to pay court costs, medical bils, and pain & suffering which can be very costly. And in most states there are dog bite laws that will have the biting dog PTS, particularly if it's not a first offence.

I took the liberty of looking up the Dog Owners Liability Act of Ontario and found the following information...

(1) The owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 2 (1).

(3) The liability of the owner does not depend upon knowledge of the propensity of the dog or fault or negligence on the part of the owner, but the court shall reduce the damages awarded in proportion to the degree, if any, to which the fault or negligence of the plaintiff caused or contributed to the damages. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 2 (3).

(3) If, in a proceeding under subsection (1), the court finds that the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal or that the dog’s behaviour is such that the dog is a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, and the court is satisfied that an order is necessary for the protection of the public, the court may order,
(a) that the dog be destroyed in the manner specified in the order

5. When, in a proceeding under section 4, the court finds that the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal or that the dog’s behaviour is such that the dog is a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, the court may make an order prohibiting the dog’s owner from owning another dog during a specified period of time. 2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6; 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (14).

Proceedings against owner of dog
4. (1) A proceeding may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that,
(a) the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal;
(b) the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals; or
(c) the owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from,
(i) biting or attacking a person or domestic animal, or
(ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (6).




And I HAVE to comment on this.....



They use the testing methods they do to simulate real life situations the dogs may encounter in a new home whether accidental or deliberate. I think it's far better they test them first rather than adopt out an animal that may attack or even kill someone without knowing what kind of temperment they have.


Not knowing which animal cops you were watching (New York, Huston, Detroit) however in all cases those places that take the animals in for treatment are ASPCA. Those places are basically funded by donations, not federal money. There is only so much money to save/treat x amount of animals. As we all know there are millions of homeless, abused, neglected, abandoned animals out there needing homes. There are only so many homes available for all these animals.

To spend the extra $$ to pay for special training for agressiveness, the additional food & medical care the dog would need in the meantime would cost alot! That money and time could be used to spend on probably saving FIVE other animals in more dire circumstances that are perfectly adoptable. The more adoptions, the more money comes in, AND opens up cage space for yet another animal to be saved. By keeping a known agressive animal, spending the money on training that may or may not work, jeopardizing the staff in the meantime with an agressive dog, and taking time, money and cage space, would put other animals that need help and are adoptable at risk of not being helped.

Sometimes you have to look at the numbers. Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice a few to save many.

It was a puppy for god sake!It actually was New York Animal Precingt

[kimlovescats]

In the states home owners insurance policies can be cancelled if you have a known agressive dog. In the states also you can face personal lawsuits from a person bitten, whether friend or delivery person, and have to pay court costs, medical bils, and pain & suffering which can be very costly. And in most states there are dog bite laws that will have the biting dog PTS, particularly if it's not a first offence.

I took the liberty of looking up the Dog Owners Liability Act of Ontario and found the following information...

(1) The owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 2 (1).

(3) The liability of the owner does not depend upon knowledge of the propensity of the dog or fault or negligence on the part of the owner, but the court shall reduce the damages awarded in proportion to the degree, if any, to which the fault or negligence of the plaintiff caused or contributed to the damages. R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 2 (3).

(3) If, in a proceeding under subsection (1), the court finds that the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal or that the dog’s behaviour is such that the dog is a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, and the court is satisfied that an order is necessary for the protection of the public, the court may order,
(a) that the dog be destroyed in the manner specified in the order

5. When, in a proceeding under section 4, the court finds that the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal or that the dog’s behaviour is such that the dog is a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, the court may make an order prohibiting the dog’s owner from owning another dog during a specified period of time. 2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6; 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (14).

Proceedings against owner of dog
4. (1) A proceeding may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that,
(a) the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal;
(b) the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals; or
(c) the owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from,
(i) biting or attacking a person or domestic animal, or
(ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals. 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (6).




And I HAVE to comment on this.....



They use the testing methods they do to simulate real life situations the dogs may encounter in a new home whether accidental or deliberate. I think it's far better they test them first rather than adopt out an animal that may attack or even kill someone without knowing what kind of temperment they have.


Not knowing which animal cops you were watching (New York, Huston, Detroit) however in all cases those places that take the animals in for treatment are ASPCA. Those places are basically funded by donations, not federal money. There is only so much money to save/treat x amount of animals. As we all know there are millions of homeless, abused, neglected, abandoned animals out there needing homes. There are only so many homes available for all these animals.

To spend the extra $$ to pay for special training for agressiveness, the additional food & medical care the dog would need in the meantime would cost alot! That money and time could be used to spend on probably saving FIVE other animals in more dire circumstances that are perfectly adoptable. The more adoptions, the more money comes in, AND opens up cage space for yet another animal to be saved. By keeping a known agressive animal, spending the money on training that may or may not work, jeopardizing the staff in the meantime with an agressive dog, and taking time, money and cage space, would put other animals that need help and are adoptable at risk of not being helped.

Sometimes you have to look at the numbers. Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice a few to save many.

This is a very good and rational post! I would / could NEVER forgive myself if my pet injured or even killed another human being!!! Mr. Biggles is a senior dog, (if I remember correctly) who Jess has given a chance at a loving home. For whatever reason, it is obvious that he is just not going to adjust at this point in his life. It is very sad for him, but certainly not Jess's fault and NOT worth the risk of causing harm to another human being.

[Blue_Frog]

and what doesn't make sense to me is that if you take Mr. Biggles back to the shelter, you have to bring the other dog back, too. that has never happened when we adopted out 2 dogs together, ever.

I could be mistaken, but I believe that the dogs were adopted from the THS's 'Bonded Pair' programme --
http://www.torontohumanesociety.com/...onded_pets.asp
These are pets that are adoped out together as a pair, and returned as a pair if need be. From my understanding, this particular pair has been returned several times to the THS already, making this the last chance they have for a home, and another return would result in both being PTS.

Also, from what i understand, Jess also signed a contract stating that if there were problems with the dogs, they were to be returned to the THS as a pair, and could -not- be rehomed by her.

The fact that one dog, regarless of size, has bitten twice is cause for concern all around. I sympathize for everyone involved, and god only knows what happened in Mr.B's past that would give him this reaction. However, now Chad has been attacked. Not bitten, but a bite/tear enough to cause a 4 inch gash, bleeding and bruising.

If this was a larger dog, the results may have been much worse. If it was the Rottweiler that had attacked (instead of the 10 pound malteese mix) and torn a larger chunk out of Chad than a 4" gash, would the situation be the same? Would there be any question about the dog being PTS? Its unlikely that an unpredictable human agressive small dog has the potential of killing someone that a large breed with the same issues might.

The natural human reaction to being attacked is fear, and it seems now that Chad is unable to live in the house with this dog, with the unpredictability of not knowing if he will be bitten again even if the chances were slim to none. The dog can't be rehomed. The dogs will both likely be PTS if returned. A dog trainer/behaviourist may help - in weeks, months or years at this point, depending on how badly scarred this dog is, or how ingrained the behaviour. Can they live in the house for that long with the possiblility of more attacks?

Jess is making a hard decision, and the decision that she feels is best in this situation. I hope the best for her, and the household.

[applesmom]

I wish I could take him. I would take him except there is a 7 year old and a 10 year old and their friends in and out of the house. Unfortunately it dosen't sound like there is much time to find someone for him, and not on my end.

I completely understand the dilemma of everyone who has legitimate excuses why they can't take Mr Biggles. For reasons that should be clearly obvious by this time, Mr Biggles is not a candidate for rehoming with anyone!

[elizabethann]

This is a very good and rational post! I would / could NEVER forgive myself if my pet injured or even killed another human being!!! Mr. Biggles is a senior dog, (if I remember correctly) who Jess has given a chance at a loving home. For whatever reason, it is obvious that he is just not going to adjust at this point in his life. It is very sad for him, but certainly not Jess's fault and NOT worth the risk of causing harm to another human being.

Mr. Biggles is a senior? I didn't know that. I've been trying to keep up with the posts and it's hard to do. King2005, do you think Mr. Biggles has problems with his eye sight? So when Chad opened the door, Mr. Biggles just freaked because he couldn't see very well? You may want to ask your vet about that. However, I'm not sure what they can do to help him if it was his eye sight.