I have been struggling with whether or not to write this particular blog. By nature I like give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their decisions, believing that most people are basically decent. Yet my street time as a cop has shown me that poor judgment can show its ugly head in many situations.
I read a column by a trainer recently. The trainer was contacted by phone. Someone had gotten a dog off one of the internet boards. The dog had started to show some alarmingly aggressive behavior. Apparently based on a phone description of the behavior and the trainer’s “knowledge” of the breed’s behavior, the trainer advised the owner to put the dog down.
The point of the article appears to have been to be very careful when getting a dog from this kind of a source. That is a valid and useful point. People are not always honest about why they want to place a dog.
What was so aggravating to me was that, unless this columnist is a poor writer, that trainer never saw the dog.
That just mystifies me. It is not that hard to get a pretty good idea of what you are going to be dealing with when someone calls. And some behaviors are so mild, that you can help them with just a few simple suggestions. You should be able to give the owner some good general advice on what they are dealing with in any conversation. But you should make it clear that until you see the dog, you cannot say for sure what the problems are.
But the trainer should insist of seeing the dog, especially if they think the problems are dangerous. To diagnose a dog as un-trainable over the phone is an extreme act of arrogance. Or it is the mark of someone who should rethink how they train.
Maybe someday I’ll find out it was just poor writing skills. But I kind of doubt it.
I wrote the paragraphs above two weeks ago but decided not to put it on the blog. Then the columnist wrote another column. The columnist got several e mails taking him to task on this. The writer made a point of how he had won over the worst critic.
When I was a field training officer I taught my young cops always try to get the suspect’s story. There were occasions when I had a solid case against a suspect. I had enough to do a warrant and make a good arrest. They seemed like slam dunk cases. But every now and then, when I got the suspect’s side of the story, the case fell apart. Either the crime hadnt occured or the supposed suspect was actually the victim.
It didn’t happen often, but it did happen.
They day will come when I have to advise someone to put down a dog. The dog will be so badly traumatized that it cannot be saved.
But I guarantee I will have seen the dog in person.
Doug
Read More..
I read a column by a trainer recently. The trainer was contacted by phone. Someone had gotten a dog off one of the internet boards. The dog had started to show some alarmingly aggressive behavior. Apparently based on a phone description of the behavior and the trainer’s “knowledge” of the breed’s behavior, the trainer advised the owner to put the dog down.
The point of the article appears to have been to be very careful when getting a dog from this kind of a source. That is a valid and useful point. People are not always honest about why they want to place a dog.
What was so aggravating to me was that, unless this columnist is a poor writer, that trainer never saw the dog.
That just mystifies me. It is not that hard to get a pretty good idea of what you are going to be dealing with when someone calls. And some behaviors are so mild, that you can help them with just a few simple suggestions. You should be able to give the owner some good general advice on what they are dealing with in any conversation. But you should make it clear that until you see the dog, you cannot say for sure what the problems are.
But the trainer should insist of seeing the dog, especially if they think the problems are dangerous. To diagnose a dog as un-trainable over the phone is an extreme act of arrogance. Or it is the mark of someone who should rethink how they train.
Maybe someday I’ll find out it was just poor writing skills. But I kind of doubt it.
I wrote the paragraphs above two weeks ago but decided not to put it on the blog. Then the columnist wrote another column. The columnist got several e mails taking him to task on this. The writer made a point of how he had won over the worst critic.
When I was a field training officer I taught my young cops always try to get the suspect’s story. There were occasions when I had a solid case against a suspect. I had enough to do a warrant and make a good arrest. They seemed like slam dunk cases. But every now and then, when I got the suspect’s side of the story, the case fell apart. Either the crime hadnt occured or the supposed suspect was actually the victim.
It didn’t happen often, but it did happen.
They day will come when I have to advise someone to put down a dog. The dog will be so badly traumatized that it cannot be saved.
But I guarantee I will have seen the dog in person.
Doug
