Shelter Tale

The euthanasia committee of the now long defunct shelter, was scheduled to meet at 4:00 pm, to determine the fate of Chula. The committee consisted of the shelter’s Executive Director, the veterinarian, the shelter’s vet tech, a senior shelter staff member, the Animal Control Officer, several board members and myself. Chula had a long list of troubling incidents leading up to the scheduled meeting. She charged frantically at bicycles, hurled herself at cars and is pictured lunging viciously at another dog, teeth bared. The most frustrating thing about Chula was that none of her training ever stuck. Every day she had to begin again, from square one. Generally, if a dog is making progress, the objectionable behaviors won’t happen as often, will not last as long and the behaviors won’t be as intense. 

A second opinion on seven questionable dogs, a well respected behaviorist from Marin had performed behavior evaluations at the shelter.  Chula had not been tested at that time as she showed over the top arousal while still in her kennel. It was decided not to make a bad situation worse. All this culminated in a serious bite that required medical attention, when a volunteer walked Chula up to greet a person. So it shocked me as I checked in at the shelter before the meeting to find that it was not to take place. Like a scene from a B grade movie, political influence behind the scenes arranged for Chula to be sprung. At the direction of some board members, she had been loaded up and whisked away by a volunteer earlier that day. She was now in rehab with a rescue group. There was no communication from the board to the staff. 

In most organizations, there is a protocol to follow when problems arise. It is desirable to resolve issues at the lowest level, if possible. I worked for a number of years for an assistance dog organization. If a volunteer puppy raiser had a concern, for example, he or she would take it to the Puppy Coordinator. If a resolution could not be made, the Regional Training Manager was brought in. If there was still contention, the Regional Director was consulted. Additionally, there was the hierarchy of the National Office, up to the National Director. On top of it all was the Board of Directors, dealing with momentous policy issues and esoteric matters such as fundraising. It was inconceivable that a volunteer would directly approach a board member concerning a program issue. Never, in seven years, did anyone higher up in the pecking order interfere with decisions of the trainers regarding the placement or release of a particular dog. While the National Office constantly clamored for more graduates, once in a while the National Director pressured for a retired or a released dog for the friend of a board member or a well heeled donor. Even here, protocol prevailed, as the graduates often wished to keep their companions in retirement and the second option was for the dog to be returned to the puppy raiser. Everybody got it. But at this shelter, a small number of volunteers and board members conspired to bypass the input of all professional staff. There was never any communication that the meeting was to be canceled nor any later explanation. 

There was a rigid adherence among these board members and some volunteers to the creed that every dog could be saved. Once out of the shelter and in a home, all behavior issues would be resolved, somehow. Sometimes, this was the case- once out of such an aggravating environment, some seriously troubled dogs responded well to a less stressful lifestyle. Every day, waking up to stability, security and affection can be transformative. As it was, Chula responded surprisingly well to her stint in rehab. The board members were invited to observe her behavior with many dogs through a window. Before long there was talk of finding a “forever “ home for her. 

This shelter was a dismal place for dogs- cramped, crowded and ramshackle. For its inmates, it was an unfamiliar environment, no loved family members, loud and reactive neighbors, strange noises, odd routines, no control- even if a dog was well housebroken, there was no way to communicate the need. To balance these deficits there was a remarkably compassionate, talented and capable staff. The Executive Director, the office and adoption people, the vet techs, Animal Control Officer, kennel staff and Volunteer Coordinator,- all worked tirelessly with limited resources to improve the unremitting stresses of kennel conditions. Kennel enrichment was a top priority. Dozens of committed volunteers were trained for different tasks-  dog training, walking, nose work, agility, field trips off campus, stuffing chew toys, grooming, tossing balls in the exercise yard, regular outings for the dogs to relieve themselves and just hanging out. Dogs were brought out of the kennels whenever possible to socialize behind the front desk and occasionally into the office trailer next door. Soft music was played and various scents were used to attempt to make their stay tolerable.

In the previous months the staff had devised a number of protocols to identify dangerous dogs, pre rehab. Kennel observation, behavior evaluations, feedback from staff and volunteers helped identify potential problems and successes. Everyone was encouraged to document any behavior, good or bad that was helpful to assess a dog and find a suitable home. It was considered not enough to adopt a dog into a home. The goal was to gather as much useful information as possible to help adopt dogs that would never see the inside of a shelter again. The usefulness of behavior evaluations and reports of staff and volunteers was questioned by some volunteers and board members. They figured all dogs were stressed in the kennels and would relax and blossom in a home. A behavior evaluation is not the end all but does give you a snapshot of a particular moment and occasionally pinpoint extreme behavior. It does provide useful information like a dog does or does not chase cats, he is or is not reactive to other dogs, she enjoys playing with toys or being groomed, or not. 

Earlier in the year, June of 2010, the Executive Director of the shelter comprised a list of seven dogs with rap sheets revealing severe behavior issues. Most had a bite history of humans and/or dogs. The list was based on previous owner input (if available), periodic behavior evaluations, and the documented input of staff and volunteers. These were dogs not suitable to be placed into polite society. The euthanasia committee was formed and first met in October of 2010. After reviewing all the input, medical and behavioral, it was determined to put down one of the dogs on the list. It was a depressing decision, not taken lightly, but all options were exhausted and the dog had been deemed unadoptable.   

Board members dismissed the suggestion to take Chula home, introduce her to their own families and/or take her to the town square to experience how she behaved in the community. Neither board members or their supporting volunteers were available to adopt or foster her. An extensive search for a foster home or sanctuary had come up short. I left the shelter before the second month of Chula’s rehab was completed. She was still generating positive reports.

Of the seven dogs listed as dangerous, Chula was in rehab. Another, who had bitten at least three people, had been fostered by a former board member. Three years later that dog, who had been working weekly with the rehab, was reported as living comfortably with two other dogs on a ranch. Three of the dogs had been euthanized, one as a result of the original October euthanasia committee meeting and two prior to that meeting. The sixth dog, a small female, had been adopted and proceeded to bite a visitor to her home. I do not know the fate of her placement or that of the seventh dog.

Hopes had long been high at the prospect of a new shelter to be constructed nearby. Its design was to be as au courant, spacious and stress free as possible. Input on design was encouraged from staff and volunteers. A field trip with the architect was made to a state of the art facility in the bay area to envisage possibilities. Ground had been broken for the new facility in November of 2010. Those dreams of the staff never approached a flicker of fulfillment. 

Long before the old shelter was shuttered in mid 2013, a new era of controversy, construction woes and board drama was in full swing. Today, nothing at the old location indicates the least scrap of the 50 year history of the shelter. A 6’ slatted chain link fence topped with three rows of barbed wire stretches across the site where the old building once faced. Behind the fence is a parking lot. Pickup trucks park where the creaky admin trailer used to be. Every last trace of the shelter is gone. By day there is no hint of the past but by night there has to be ghosts. 

Shelter work is fraught with raw emotion and adamant opinion. “Compassion fatigue” is common, high turnover prevalent. The board members and volunteers who bypassed the euthanasia committee felt passionately that every dog deserved a chance. Others of us believed, equally righteously, that no potentially dangerous dog should ever be placed. It was a frustrating dilemma as everyone wanted to improve the lives of the down on their luck dogs. We had all been tossed down the same rabbit hole. 

Several years later, I received a phone call. The person on the line was looking for help for a dog with serious aggression problems. As the man explained the particulars of the situation, it became apparent that the dog in question was Chula. I related to him my history and previous assessment of her before recusing myself.