If I've learned anything doing this job in Asheville for the past 25 years, it's that locals are incredibly — sometimes irrationally — passionate about dogs.

And that makes me happy. I love living in a place where people care so deeply about animals, particularly dogs, as I'm a big fan myself, especially of rescues.

My wife and I have had three basset hounds over the years, one from Henderson County's shelter, one from the Asheville Humane Society and another from Georgia's basset rescue group. We also have a little mutt from a South Carolina rescue group who's allegedly a Dachshund but looks nothing like one.

So, I love dogs, and I like to save dogs from being euthanized instead of buying dogs from a shop or breeder.

A change in adoptability standards

But I understand why Brother Wolf Animal Rescue has changed its "no kill" policy and has been euthanizing a small number of aggressive dogs that it cannot safely adopt out.

It has created an outcry among some former supporters, who believe the organization is not giving these dogs a long enough chance to improve. Some critics also say they've interacted with the dogs safely and do not believe they're dangerous.

More:Brother Wolf signals mission change, shift away from animals with history of aggression

My take is that Brother Wolf is acting responsibly and ethically, making a very difficult decision to diverge from a previous policy that was impractical at best and actually dangerous at worst.

Leah Craig Fieser, the executive director of Brother Wolf Animal Rescue, and Jesse Winters, director of operations, penned a really powerful op-ed Jan. 18 about the change in direction. If you haven't read it, it's definitely worth your time.

This paragraph from Fieser and Winters crystallizes the issue better than anything I can say:

"For years, the previous leadership of Brother Wolf Animal Rescue made the well-intended but, I believe, misguided decision to adopt aggressive dogs into the community. Many people and animals now bear the physical and emotional scars of those decisions. We have chosen not to continue that practice. It is unsafe and unethical."

I might add that knowingly adopting out a dog with a documented aggression is probably also a great way for a shelter to get sued.

It's also important to note that the dogs Brother Wolf has euthanized represented a very small portion of the animals it takes in. "Of the nearly 2,000 animals Brother Wolf took in in 2019, 0.6% were euthanized due to offensive aggressive behavior," Fieser and Winters wrote.

More:We know change at Brother Wolf Animal Rescue is hard. Here's why it's necessary | OPINON

We've all likely had encounters with aggressive dogs, and they can be terrifying. Fieser and Winters detailed a few examples from just 2019 of historically aggressive dogs being adopted out, with disastrous results, including a case where a child was attacked and bitten multiple times in the face while asleep.

In a nutshell, if a shelter knows a dog has a bite history or a history of unprovoked aggression and adopts the dog out, they've put a ticking time bomb out in our community.

I've previously written about our basset being attacked, unprovoked, by a 100-pound pit bull in my neighborhood. About two years ago, while at the Bold Rock cidery with our three dogs, a large mixed-breed dog unexpectedly lunged at our little dog in a scary, aggressive manner that caught us — and the dog's owner — off-guard.

Dogs live in communities

In my opinion, dogs with a documented history of aggression, especially unprovoked and unpredictable aggression, pose a tremendous danger in a community.

And it's important to remember that these animals do live in communities — of adults, children and other pets. In short, with you and me and our pets.

“That’s the bottom line: We live in communities, we live in families, and these animals have to be able to live successfully with us, without putting anybody in danger — other animals, other people,” said Tracey Elliott, who was the executive director of the Asheville Humane Society for four years before leaving a year ago to head up the Anti-Cruelty Society in Chicago.

Elliott has known Fieser, who volunteered at AHS, for four years. He had multiple conversations with her when she was exploring the idea of shifting Brother Wolf's no-kill philosophy, and he considers her a "person of incredible integrity."

“To demonize her over this, it’s terrible,” Elliott said. “She’s reasonable, she loves animals. This is what she’s dedicated her life to."

The key here is dogs that show aggression in an unpredictable or unprovoked manner.

Elliott says he's seen this where "something's triggered and they’re biting and they’re attacking and they can do damage.”

If a shelter has observed this, it then becomes their responsibility, in terms of what happens with that dog.

"Because it could be five years before they end up hurting a person or another dog, but nevertheless, if you observe that behavior and knew the dog had that tendency, that’s your responsibility," Elliott said. "And the people who are out there protesting don’t have that responsibility. They don’t have that on their conscience if it hurts the child or kills another animal, and we have to think about that. It’s a tough, tough, tough circle to square.”

Fieser inherited an awful position when she assumed the helm of Brother Wolf, in part because previous leadership had misled supporters about the operation's capabilities and potential.

"These supporters were told that Brother Wolf could act as a behavior rehabilitation center and could fix aggression," Fieser and Winters wrote. "They were told that Brother Wolf could take on the hardest animals, change them and find them homes. They were told that a sanctuary would exist for the ones they could not place. None of this proved to be true."

'No-kill' philosophy waning

In his role, Elliott has visited shelters and operations all over the United States. He's sees the Brother Wolf saga through a broader lens in which good-hearted people pushed the "no-kill" philosophy, with good and bad results.

"The no-kill movement pushed this profession to think a lot and perhaps even invest a lot more in life saving,” Elliott said. “That’s the good thing the no-kill movement did.”

But proponents often took a stance that no dog should ever be euthanized, no matter its behavioral history.

"The unintended consequence, however, is that many animals became victims of the no-kill movement by being just warehoused in shelters,” Elliott said. “Animals that could not be adopted, should not be adopted for a variety of reasons. They can’t live safely or successfully with a human family in a community.”

That is no life for a dog, and it also takes space away from dogs that could be adopted. Dogs have evolved to become social animals who need human care and contact.

“So Brother Wolf was in a situation where there were dogs who were living there for years,” Elliott said. “If they can’t be adopted out, there’s a reason why. And again, it’s inhumane to warehouse these animals. So I think Leah has had to make the very difficult, courageous decision, as we did at Asheville Humane Society, that life in a crate for a dog is not life worth living.”

More:Boyle column: Sorry, but some dog breeds are dangerous

The no-kill movement has waned all over the country, "definitely slowed if not stopped," as Elliott says.

It's also important to remember that people in the field, even if they adopt the stance that some dogs have to be euthanized, still love animals and want the best for them.

"I have now traveled all over the country going to conferences, visiting other shelters, in every region of the country,” Elliott said. “I’ve never met a person who wants to euthanize a dog or a cat or any animal, in this field — ever. And I know that’s not the case with the folks at Brother Wolf. This is not what they’re in this profession to do. They’re in this profession to save lives.”

I told Elliott that I truly believe the critics of Brother Wolf and its new policies are well-meaning people who truly want the best for animals. He does, too.

"I also understand the opposition — we want to save every animal we can," Elliott said. "But again, by saving a dog that then lives in a crate, that lives in a shelter, we’re not helping that animal. At the end of the day it just makes us feel better; it doesn’t make them feel better.”

That is the bottom line, and it's not always easy to accept that.

This is the opinion of John Boyle. Contact him at 828-232-5847 or jboyle@citizentimes.com.