Rescue dog! Big let down!

jimmyjimsgin

Just read your thread, thank you however the dog fight was slightly different. older dog got up and new dog ran at his throat. older dog laid on floor while new dog tore into his ear and head leaving big wounds. Older dog did nothing new dog kept attacking. Vet believes that had I not been there, worse could have happened. I agree that the pecking order has to be established but this was a mighty attack, not your usual dog snapping etc, old dog did not try to assert himself, new dog kept attacking and injuring.

very frightening, especially if new dog took the same approach to my 5 year old daughter.

i do realise that some settling down period is expected however i could not ignore the type fo attack that took place.

cavework wrote: »

Ok not to harp but..
you have a dog male 6 years old.. enter new dog 1 year old male
New dog is there 4 days.
New dog has still not got used to who is the leader of the pack .. dogs are pack animals.
New dog hasn't even had time to learn you are the pack leader.
Old dog knows who is the boss and new dog challenges older dog.. fight
This is not a dog with behavioural problems.

jimmyjimsgin

ah thank you, no i understand with dogs but could have been handled better
appreciate your comments,

orlao wrote: »

While I sympathise with you jimmyjimsgin, and agree that the charity could have dealt with this better - the "problem" with volunteers is that they aren't as easily managed as paid employees when it comes to things like customer service and attitude!

However, what happened between the 2 dogs is absolutely typical of a dog who feels that he's got his feet under the table, so to speak and decides to try and stamp his authority on the resident dog. At a year old, the rescue is probably right in the middle of his teenage, obnoxious stage and was pushing his luck and trying to move up the pecking order. It sounds like he was trying to get closer to you as rescues are often insecure and unfortunately there was a fight.

Again, I'm very suprised that the rescue didn't offer you an older female or at the very least advice before you adopted the dog and proper support when the fight happened. IMHO the fact that they didn't appear too isn't going to be grounds for a refund of your donation, however annoyed you justifiably are.

Sorry if that's not what you want to hear.

Mistymaid

I'm afraid that's still sorting out a pecking order. It's not a fight over 'nothing.' Sometimes they get too excited in play, sometimes when they both run to the door, sometimes because of jealousy.

There are lots of reasons animals fight and usually we don't see or read the signals.

jimmyjimsgin

because the charities commission said they may or may not be able to address the issue. They will write to them and see what they have to say. It didnt sound very hopeful to me, thats why i gave the charity the oportunity to respond, as they havent then i will try the charity commission route and failing that may have a rethink. I agree about the rescue dogs, that is why i went down that route, to save one dog but i didnt realise that amongst the great charities there appears to be one that is not really doing the very best for the dogs or new homes.

I have got it all in perspective, but dont want to feel like dropping it just because it is a charity for rescue dogs. my dog was attacked, my daughter was very upset and sad and i was deeply shocked and disappointed..

Mistymaid wrote: »

So why, if you are going the Charities Commission route, are you still talking about suing?

Look, lets get all this in perspective:

As others have mentioned, two dogs in the same house, castrated or not is pretty much a bit of a recipe for disaster. It may not have been a major disaster, and the odds are that the dog in question may have gone on to be an only dog or put with a girly and everything is fine and dandy, but potentially it could have led to problems in your situation.
The rescue should have at least had some idea this was a likely scenario.

I myself currently have one uncastrated rescue dog. He's a big lad but daft as a brush, however no way, when I was looking for another dog would I have considered anything other than a !!!!!. Just playing as safe as I could.

Thing is, you weren't to know this, so the rescue should have made sure in their assessment of him and also forwarned you that they would, most likely, sort out a pecking order.

They've also handled the returns thing badly and as such need a huge kick up the backside - the Charities Commission have the power to do such a thing and I hope they do. BUT if you go to court or give this situation a lot of publicity, who really suffers in the long run? The rescue dogs.

People will start screaming about them being not safe with kids etc etc returning re-homed dogs - nightmare, and I don't think you really want that?

Yet if the Charities Commission do threaten to lift the charitable status of the rescue unless they improve their assessment, advice and returns policy, they are more likely to actually do it and everyone benefits in the long run (including you being given your money back)

Hope this makes sense.

jimmyjimsgin

well the signal was very slight because even a s an experienced dog owner i didnt read the signal. still not dog friendly as described by charity, still not handled by charity satisfactorily. will contact charity commissions tomorrow thank you

Mistymaid wrote: »

I'm afraid that's still sorting out a pecking order. It's not a fight over 'nothing.' Sometimes they get too excited in play, sometimes when they both run to the door, sometimes because of jealousy.

There are lots of reasons animals fight and usually we don't see or read the signals.

Mistymaid

Nobody is expecting you to drop it, well some people are but I think you should pursue it. However it is getting a little out of hand. Yes, your dog was 'attacked,' but this new dog was in your house for 4 days before doing so, hardly indicative of an unnaturally aggressive dog?

Personally I am beginning to think he probably did it out of jealousy and as somebody else mentioned earlier a lot of rescue dogs are like this when they first move in. Your dog is quietly napping, other dog sees him shift and stops him in his tracks. You have to see it from their point of view. Even with my two I always try and have one eye on the ball so to speak. New girly is dominant and loves her mam and 'dirty looks' boy dog if he tries to push in. She'd give him a nip or two if she thought she could get away with it (not likely love!)

As I've said, I don't think this dog or any other male dog should have been placed with you anyway and hopefully the Charities Commission will make the rescue think twice, it would make sense from all angles.

mpg

I agree with the OP regarding refund. Youv'e asked a "professional" organisation for advice and they failed you.

I think some of you should see "The Dog Whisperer"

The pecking order in the house is humans at the top and animals underneath.

Mistymaid

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you weren't experienced enough to know you really shouldn't try two boys together ...

mpg

Mistymaid wrote: »

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you weren't experienced enough to know you really shouldn't try two boys together ...

And Neither were the "professional" organisation

And their is nothing wrong in keeping male dogs together as long as the Humans of the house are dominant and to quote Ceaser milan "pack leaders"

Mistymaid

So what you are actually saying is that the professional organisation were right in putting two males together, or have you made a professional assessment as to how dominant the humans in the household are comparative to the male dogs?