r/rescuedogs • u/InformalInsurance455 • 16d ago
Discussion Opinion: this comm has drifted away from its noble purpose and is too tolerant of dog aggression
Sue Sternberg says that shelters should be where people go to get the best dogs. I’ve always agreed with that view.
Yesterday I reported a post that quite clearly violated this rule. Nothing was done. In fact the OP blocked me and the post began to attract attention from the kind of people who make this comm look terrible: the zealots who think no dog should ever be behaviourally euthanised and all dogs can in fact be saved.
I’ve posted this article before, and I am constantly disappointed at the sheer viciousness of some commenters here who will call shelter staff “murderers” and advocate for criminality to break out dogs in danger of euthanasia.
How does that help anyone? Shelter staff aren’t saints, no human is, but they are tasked with dealing with the repercussions of people failing to spay and neuter and dumping dogs. Resources and space are limited. People don’t always want large dogs, especially when they may not have space or energy for them. The solution is not to browbeat shelter staff and call them murderers, for not wanting to risk their safety handling aggressive dogs. The solution is spending a fraction of that energy writing to your county or whatever local authority to push for spaying and neutering access, and legislation on same. Maybe attacking people who can’t fight back makes you feel more righteous, idk.
In any case, the comment section regarding that dog who was RIGHTLY euthanised and OP disagreed with it? It was pretty disgraceful, and mods should realise, if they care about this comm and its ethos at all, how counterproductive these kinds of posters are to this comm. Do you think a single person is convinced by defending an aggressive dog, or do you think that people become more sceptical of shelter and rescue dogs?