This article appeared in a list serv that I share with many of my colleagues.
I will not give credence to it's title or it's content
It highlights the reports of "abuse" by a trainer in New Jersey and similar complaints that have surfaced in New York City, all with incidents that predate either the Minnesota or the New York State bills' attempts to regulate dog trainers.
What I find difficult to believe is that if these reports are true, where is the proof? We insulate ourselves with the trust that these reports are accurate when it is clearly suggested in the case of the New York dog walker/trainer that there may be a hidden agenda, and of the 300 alleged THIRD PARTY reports, no clear evidence exists. Oh, I get it, GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. Gee, what was I thinking....
Huh?
As for the guy in New Jersey, I remember the stink over this a few months ago. A cattle prod was found. A slingshot and a PVC pipe were also found. Early reports suggest that one of these items were found at a colleague's home, not on the property of the target of these charges. If there were concerns 14 years ago as one of the charges suggests, and six since then, why was something not done sooner?
Oh, that's right, it was only important when it suited the proper agenda, like Daschle's taxes or the new head of the Federal Treasury Department and others of the 'New Administration". It only serves a purpose NOW. Not in 1995 when the first alleged crime was perpetrated.
His guilt is assumed, and if he is found so through DUE PROCESS and not the court of public opinion, then we as trainers in our secular community will be justly served as he and his ilk deserve proper punishment for their crimes. Or will we?
Will it be that we are no longer able to practice our craft unless we are supervised by the government to assure that "no harm was done"? Who will be the judge of what constitutes "harm", "inhumane" practices or "abuse"?
What about the owners deeply committed to their dogs who are not served by the government's proposals to endorse certain types of trainers and not others? Will they be forced to give up their dogs because they could not be trained with methods beyond the scope of their definition of approved? How full are the shelters in this country now? How full do you think they will get in the near future if it should come to pass that only "government approved" methods are used?
This is not an endorsement of "punching, hitting, kicking or hanging" dogs by any means. I think such tactics do constitute abuse and I do not personally know of a trainer in my acquaintance who would use such tactics.
It is not the METHOD that defines TRAINED, it is the END RESULT of the training itself. Physically abusing an animal does not constitute a method and defining abuse is the dichotomy. Collars don't abuse dogs, PEOPLE DO. TOOLS are not the issue, who wields the tool is. The banning of tools is the lowest common denominator in all of this and will only serve to be as effective as New York City's current gun control policy.
I see this as a personal vendetta mounted as a political agenda and offered up in a time and place where the controversy can be utilized to it's greatest effect.
The importance of knowing all the facts seems to escape most reporters these days; they are too wrapped up in currying favor amongst their own breed of lobbyists in the political hotbed that surrounds pets and the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR their ownership generates in income for hundreds of thousands of people, businesses and, yup, you guessed it, politicians.
It is inconceivable to me how a party or parties can be so deluded by the fervent scree of a few individuals without the basis of FACT, only the emotion laden mutterings of a few misguided, uneducated bleeding hearts who think they know "inhumane" or "abusive" practices based solely on weak evidence and lots of speculation. And, as I said, perhaps a hidden agenda or two.
Tell me, who is more "abusive"?
Linda Kaim
www.lionheartk9.com
New Website .. And a smooth move for our Blog
8 years ago
