Another Viewpoint

I don’t dispute this agency’s assertions, as obviously I was not there. Further, as is their right (volunteers after all, have no legal standing), we have never been privy to the results nor the paperwork so frankly, anyone can say whatever they want. What I will say is that I know, for instance, that the SAFER test was one method used. Unfortunately, for many places, it is used inaccurately. It is meant to be a starting point, and the dogs are meant to be assessed by a number of other tests and criteria. Basing their fate on ONE test that is not in any way to be definitive is one of the ways high kill shelters justify their numbers.


All I say is that after 2.5 years I have never seen any one of the five display anything approximating the type of behaviour the author states in Fred’s blog . Certainly, based on my own and many of my co-walkers experiences, “far gone and disconnected” are two words that we would not in any associate with those dogs. Our experiences with them were positive, fun and loving. This, even after the unbelievable stress they have been under since the raid. Not only were they removed from those like myself, who loved and knew them, but staff turnovers, the number of strangers that were poking and prodding at them, the cessation of their normal routine, the tension which is palpable in the air at the THS, and I feel that they actually acquitted themselves even better than I would have anticipated. I also can’t address some of the issues raised (trimming nails, etc) although we all, at different times, cleaned up the dogs, removed objects from their kennels, played with them with toys, groomed them etc, again with no issues.

However, I’m not even going to go there. The point I would like to make is that suggesting first that the THS is “not a sanctuary” is WRONG. It is not a sanctuary now but it most decidedly was for a very many years. Ian McConachie, Garth Jerome or other THS spokespersons or conversely, others that came in from the outside and repeatedly say “THS is not a rescue or sanctuary” does NOT change the reality that it very much WAS. Nor do I believe that our dogs required the kind of intense and long-term therapy that Michael Vick’s dogs received in Dogtown. On the contrary, given they had some, from what all accounts, are fairly normal behavioural issues for dogs I believe that the THS had a moral responsibility to work with the dogs on their shortcomings.

The THS indeed failed these dogs in the long-term – but also since. By “hoarding” them and refusing to allow highly certified on-staff trainers to work with them – and even volunteers were regularly monitored to ensure that we were not “forcing” the dogs to do anything they didn’t want to (i.e. teaching the leash manners, sit, stay, etc), the THS was wrong. No one disputes that whatsoever.

BUT arguing that they were “right” to kill them at this point in time when there was every opportunity to rehabilitate is morally repugnant. Those trainers are STILL on staff, the number of dogs was so reduced that it seemed obvious that NOW, finally, these dogs had a real chance to learn how to interact with the public in a way that would make them wonderful pets and highly adoptable. There is no excuse, in my mind, to say “well, we failed them in the past, so now we have to kill them” which, no matter how you present it, IS THE CASE.

And yes, I have never denied that Tiger had ONE bite incident (which I’ve talked about before). The reality being that the dog was mishandled and provoked of course carries no weight in Court and I know that.

I am aware that many rescues have limitations on the type of dog they can take. As many function by putting the dogs in foster homes (which is wonderful) where the dog is truly taught to interact with families, understandably they cannot take a dog with any significant issues. However, there are agencies out there that DO take dogs with issues and with great success, rehabilitate them. The kind of pressure exerted on caring staff and volunteers to find places under unrealistic time constraints was not just unfortunate, but reprehensible.

The author is right that we didn’t know the agency in Ohio. However, I was in the process of having my sister (who lives in the States) check out through the very extensive network she has of people in dog rescue (she has worked for 15 years with a collie rescue in the States) to ascertain the shelter’s reputation. Had we been provided the opportunity, we would have been happy to go down ourselves to make a personal assessment apart from anything else – as we made clear to staff again and again.

And while I’m delighted the author found some good company in the individuals now in charge, that has been so far beyond what volunteers have experienced it is as if we are in alternate realities.  Our experience has been negative in every sense of the word from the patant and unforgiveable lack of transparency, the autocratic and high-handed way we are treated, the refusal to answer qusetions or emails, the objectionable degree of security and the refusal to allow us access to and interaction with animals that we have developed safe, loving and positive relationships with.

My own opinion remains unchanged. Politics, both historical and current, a mindset the polar opposite of the THS philosophy for the past years, an ingrained prejudice and belief in their own superiority have – and are – destroying what could have been the only refuge for imperfect animals (imperfect almost exclusively due to human intervention) in Ontario. As it was being conducted by the Trow regime, there is NO question it was bastardized and twisted. As it COULD have played out as the philosophy was meant to be enacted is a tragedy that it is not.

There was every opportunity for the issues considered problematic to be addressed and redressed – the choice ultimately came down to convenience and will – and the dogs paid the price.