deb explained the difference between carly/phoebe and clyde really well.
Carol · May 31, 2008
because the difference between them was organic vs. behavioral. phoebe and carly are manageable because their aggression is behavioral and therefore predictable, we know what sets them off, we try to minimize that. but clyde's aggression came from a misfiring brain, damaged beyond repair and the rage syndrome was part of his seizure disease...it was not predictable or manageable...it was random acts of uncontrolled violence. a study of american prison's back in the 70's showed that 98% of violent offenders, suffered a brain injury sometime in their past. the brain is a very delicate and complicated organ.
the other part of this tho, is from the dogs point of view....the others, and from clyde's.
phoebe always gives very good warning before she is going to bite...she snarls and growls and lifts her lips and gives the other dogs and people plenty of opportunity to get out of her space. carly is pretty quick with her warnings and doesn't give alot of notice..... BUT..carly accepts being isolated, she doesn't like it all that much but she accepts it, and clyde could not.
the other animals are therefore somewhat protected by virtue that carly is not roaming their midst and phoebe will tell them to "F" off...also both carly and phoebe are jumpers...they jump their victims and then they let them go once they have done what they felt they had to to re-establish their rules.
clyde wasn't communicating with or disciplining personal rule breakers...he was in a red hot blind rage...which means he doesn't stop until his rage goes away or something or someone else makes him stop.
i am sure there are many who think killing clyde was wrong and it WAS wrong for both clyde and for me. but it is not just clyde and me who happen to live here. and here is the crunch of this...i believe in the rights of one, and those are the same as the rights of many...take care of each one, individually and the many are cared for too.
except...this time it did not work that way.
how i felt about clyde, was not part of the decision i made. whether i loved him or not would have made no difference. i made a decision to sacrifice clyde because i was not willing to risk any more harm to anyone else, not ever again. and when looking at the isolation options, i was not willing to do that to him either.
all of these dogs are different...with effort, dogs like jesse, ben, carly and max can have quality of life while curtailing their freedom...but not all dogs can. and clyde could not....and emotionally traumatizing him day after day to keep him separate, was not going to give him any happiness or peace...it would have driven him completely insane. clyde was not a dog to wait patiently until someone happened to drop by and be with him...he would have fought and screamed to be rescued, he would have jumped and flung himself around to be free because that is who clyde was...a sweet and wonderful dog with a very badly physiologically damaged brain. he could not learn, he could not reason...all he could do was react.
my job is not to torment animals with no hope of ever finding release or happiness. my job is to care for them with respectful compassion and sometimes that means letting them go. i am not saying this makes ending his life right, i am saying that ending his life was necessary for his wellbeing and the others living here.