Oreo the "Miracle Dog" Euthanized, Public Outraged

I find it interesting that someone "knows" that an animal can tell you are euthanizing them and "look at you with fear." When I was younger and unable to reason as an adult, I would certainly look at a paramedic with fear when they put in an IV catheter in a strange place (hospital) even if it was benign fluids. C'mon, get real people. If I were a dog that hated life or was terminally ill, I would look at the angel of mercy with relief, not fear, in my eyes.

I've read through *almost* all of these entries and this is obviously a topic that raises emotions. For all those in favor of "Oreo's Law"- do you want to be the home next to the one Oreo lives in when her "rescuers" decide she's rehabilitated? Maybe let her play with your kids or small pet? I certainly wouldn't. C'mon people, open your eyes! There are HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of GOOD adoptable pets in shelters who could benefit tremendously from our time and funds. Some animals are simply too far gone. Have you taken into consideration that while Oreo did go through a horrific ordeal, she was 2 years old when she was euthanized- anyone remember anything about behavioral issues? She's just the right age for aggression to BE developing and her adult personality traits setting in- if she hadn't been abused and was just "one more bad pit", would we all be so up in arms about this? The real issue truly is liability. Oreo and other dogs like her, regardless of history, are liabilities and DO NOT belong in society. I don't care what sanctuaries/shelters/havens/etc exist, SOMEONE must be put in harms way to even MINIMALLY care for these animals, and that's simply not reasonable. I am NOT in favor of Oreo's Law. Incidentally, are some animals frightened during a euthanasia? Sure. Are some of these animals frightened by LIFE, you bet. Euthanasias done properly are peaceful and humane. - NY DVM

I love it! That's a great idea!!

Wow, I'm really shocked that anyone would think that this dog could have or should have been rehabilitated. I hope this bill does not pass. I believe this needs to be looked at on individual cases. If Oreo had been healed and showed no signs of aggression or erratic behavior then by all means she should not have been euthanized. Oreo showed up front that she could not be trusted and that doesn't leave a lot of options. Not only can you not risk injury or worse to someone but, it wouldn't be fair to keep her penned up for the remainder of her life. To many times well being animal lovers believe that because their pet has shown no aggression toward them or their family that they can be completely trusted and that simply is not true. We don't always know the triggers. I myself am an animal lover, but I believe we need to understand their limitations.

I rarely have an animal who is fearful when I euthanize them. But then I make sure that the owners are not upsetting the animal with a lot of grieving and that we are very kind when we do it. Isn't much different than when we do a heartworm test...

Dr. Smith, you are so right! A dog that has shown progressive aggression towards humans and other animals is not a dog that can be safely put in the hands of people who, while well-meaning, do not understand that human life and safety comes first. Ultimately, the responsibility of deciding what is best for an animal like this is staggering. Although heart-rending, one must consider the fact that a potential killer is being released on the public. I would be forever haunted if I placed this animal in a situation where a person, or another animal, was injured or killed. The ASPCA did the right thing and its management should be applauded in making the right decision in the face of such sad circumstances.

Euthanasia is *not* a punishment, it is a gift. A dog that is aggressive towards both other animals AND humans is not a dog that is happy. Nothing is going to change that. And you add in the bite pressure for a pit bull, and you are talking a deadly animal...a time bomb waiting to go off. Why should a rescue organization take the time, money, and liability to rehab something like that. Sure it is terrible what happened to her (the abuse) and the guy that did it should be treated like a "pre stage serial killer." But there is no way in blue heaven that I would consider risking anyone to re home this dog. I have seen enough bad endings to situations like this to know. After 15 years in the veterinary industry, I have seen other dogs killed, people (including children) scarred. Is it worth the risk? How would you feel when you have to hold down your toddler so she can get her face sutured? Or how about my friend that lost a thumb to a rottie that should have been euthanized years ago? She was visiting a friend's house...dog known to have been aggressive and was being treated by a veterinary behaviorist (a DVM with an advanced degree in behavior, not some dog trainer off the streets). Dog was euthanized after that and almost bit a staff member. As for those that say the animals "know" they are being "killed," BS. They know they are being restrained for an injection. Animals don't understand mortality.

I think "Oreo's Law" is a great idea. It allows for checks and balances when trying to determine an animal's fate. It sounds like there will be room for opposing views, or to hear more than one side before the final, irreversible decision to euthanize is made by one singular party. The animal can't debate the decision to euthanize on its own behalf, so I'm glad to see there will be room for debate somewhere. But who decides (and how do they decide?) what constitues a "legitimate" rescue group?

For anyone to say that an animal does not know that it is being put to death is someone that has not put down many pets. On the other hand, Might be a very callus human being. When the healthy pet pulls away from you and look at you with fear in their eyes and you are injecting the solution into their veins. Then that is an animal that knows it is being put down. Do not say that they do not know. You need more training in animal behavior or just need to pay attention to the patients you are treating. RH, DVM GA

Considering that Oreo was injured in the summer of 2009, she had barely enough time to heal from her physical wounds much less recover mentally. How about the great example of the Michael Vick Dogs rehabilitated at the Best friend's Sanctuary in Utah. They worked for about a year on many of the dogs and many went on to become great pets and even therapy dogs. Yes, some of them will live forever at the no-kill Sanctuary but I they have loving caretakers, food, exercise, toys and warm and comfortable shelter and constant training and efforts to make them happier and healthier dogs-physically aAND mentally. How awful is that. Considering that Oreo had organizations willing to put forth the time, $ and effort-why was it decided that euthanasia was her "best" option? Really? Deborah A. LaPaugh VMD, LaPaw Animal Hospital, Bend, Oregon

They do know what is going on and what is planned for them. They do know they are about to be euthanized...take a closer look and you will see. They are intelligent, sensitive, knowing beings...give them more respect. Oreo endured our wanting to save and treat her only to have us give up on her when she needed us most. W. K., D.V.M.

I am bothered most by this statement...Winograd later went on to say that “the ASPCA...would rather perpetuate the violence and betrayal Oreo already experienced by killing her.”.....I highly doubt the APSCA beat Oreo to death or electrocuted her. Euthanasia via injection or gas is a humane way to die. The ASPCA did NOT perpetuate violence through euthanasia and Oreo had no knowledge she was going to die before she lost consciousness. Come on people, stop pretending that animals can reason and that by some divine knowledge Oreo contemplated her own death and was hurt by it. KF, DVM Florida

I wish people in rescue would take a step back sometimes and really stop and think about what THE PET is going through. Imagine the last time you were scared or panicked. Really STOP for a moment and THINK about that. Now imagine feeling scared or panicked ALL THE TIME. The "sanctuaries" I have visited have numerous "unplaceable" dogs and cats that are essentially being forced to live out life sentences in a constant state of fear or panic simply because their human "benefactors" are too selfish to put the pet's need before their own ridiculous notion that euthanasia is the worst fate that can befall a pet. If you were to ask these particular pets whether they would want to live in a perpetual state of terror or whether they would want to be humanely released from such a sentence - which do you suppose THE PET would choose? Just because a rescue appears "legitimate" does not mean they have the knowledge or ability to rehab an abused pit-bull. Who is going to police the groups that will be taking in and "rehabbing" these dogs if this legislation passes? Will some sort of time frame be legislated so these tormented animals don't end up simply being warehoused for the rest of their miserable lives?!?! Yet another example of incredibly ignorant individuals attempting to pass legislation that will not benefit the pet, will not benefit already overwhelmed rescues and most certainly not benefit the poor family that adopts what can amount to a ticking time-bomb of a new pet. Now, I'm not saying that SOME of these guys can't be rehabbed. SOME absolutely can given the perfect set of circumstances and an incredibly knowledgeable behaviorist using positive reinforcement and techniques based on learning theory (good examples would be www.askdryin.com or www.clickertraining.com). The number of true behaviorists in this country that would be able to fully rehab (read: make UNQUESTIONABLY safe and sound) an emotionally disturbed pitbull are unfortunately few and far between. Additionally, the number of truly abused/emotionally disturbed/mentally destroyed pitbulls that are capable of being rendered COMPLETELY safe and trustworthy in all situations is questionable at best. And let me preface that by saying I LOVE PITTIES!! They are one of my favorite breeds and I used to rescue ONLY Pits. In the right hands they are one of the most fantastic, loving, loyal, giving, and downright JOYFUL breeds of dog on this planet. In the wrong hands, well...... The real problem here is: Who gets to make the final determination? Who says either: 1. This dog is not salvageable and will never be a safe pet or 2. This dog is completely cured and trustworthy and is now safe to be placed in a family. In what time frame does number 2 occur or not occur? When do we decide that a dog is or is not able to be rehabilitated? Not every dog will become a safe pet. Is this fair? Is it right? OF COURSE NOT!!!! It's never the pet's fault. Who is responsible when one of these pets (if improperly "rehabbed") bites a small child in the face or kills someone else's dog? At the end of the day, above all else, every single person in rescue must look beyond themselves and put the pet's happiness and the potential adopter's safety first. R. Smith, DVM Safe Harbor Animal Hospital Actively involved in animal rescue since 1990

I agree completely. I also agree with the assertion that we don't know the entire situation and as such should not make such harsh judgements against an entire organization. From the statements made by the ASPCA, it appears that Oreo would have to live a solitary life, which is not a life for a social animal. I believe it is far worse to let a terrified and stressed animal live a marginal life. Even if she could have been rehabbed to some extent, it is more likely her behavior would just be managed and she would still would have to cope with her fears and anxiety for her entire life. I can understand why the public may be upset, but I fear that many don't have the appropriate understanding of canine behavior. I know that we all anthropomorphize our pets, but its important to take a step back and understand that an abused, aggressive dog is not the same as a human in a similar state. I also think that our animal service resources (those that the ASPCA and other rescue groups provide) are better spent on the hundreds of other animals that are much less severe cases. I would rather see twenty animals rehabilitated rather than just one really severe case. Finally, I do think that I lot of positive did come out of Oreo's life because her controversy brought much needed attention to animal abuse, animal welfare, and the great challenges that our animal welfare organizations face!

What if she was an emissary from an advanced interstellar race... She was a individual that seeks affection from people and feels the compulsion to be aggressive (justifiably) towards people. Will she live her life being lead by a rabies pole? Which bite by an adult PBT will be the one that is "too many"? Will the attempt to rehabilitate her become the final example of "how those whacky idealists won't face the dangers of EVIL PBTs" and bring everyone to Denver's standards of Pit Bull Laws? This could not have happened in Denver. Here our government KILLS ALL Pits! They don't try to rehabilitate them. They don't even care if they are true Pits. If they claim that your dog is a pit, you have to prove that you have moved out of the area or it will get "Put down for public safety". At the ASPCA, a broken tree was cut down. In Denver we have a clear cut forest, and our government wants to do more... Send your outrage to Denver! It might save Thousands of affectionate dogs here!

Public outrage is understandable. The perception of how much this dog suffered at the hands of a human being is being measured against the guilt of society that she then proved un-rehomable. But we need to remember that dogs are companion animals. They should take on a role as such, and there are many thousands of "ideal" homeable dogs in rescue shelters who may end up being euthanized if no home can be found. Resources are restricted at all rescue organizations, and to put staff health and safety at risk by keeping a dog like "Oreo" would be negligent. If she was a wild animal, then the argument would be different. However, she was a pet dog, and as such, decisions have to be made on whether she could ever fulfil that role again. A life in kennels would have been equally unfair on her. I thin kthe right decision was taken, for the right reasons, but I can still see why there is a public outcry.