Patrick got lucky; most animals don't

(Here’s the beginning of a column about animals who “have no choice,” prompted by the recent media attention over the dog who took part in the bin Laden raid. It also refers to Patrick, the pit bull who was so badly abused a couple months ago in Newark, NJ.)

Navy SEAL dog, hero dog, canine commando . . . whatever the name, it's a “service dog” -- meaning service to and for humans; meaning that humans' agendas are served; meaning, basically, involuntary servitude by a non-human animal.

From all the excitement over the dog who took part in the bin Laden raid, you would think puppies aspire to join the Navy SEALs (or to become seeing-eye dogs, or take on any of the other “jobs” humans so kindly dream up for them and other animals). When national security and patriotism are also involved, it becomes even easier to go along with using dogs as if they’re inanimate, disposable tools without lives of their own.

The same newspaper story about the SEAL dog also mentioned Labrador Retrievers as a breed increasingly used in war. They’re trained to walk ahead of humans to sniff out explosives. The story didn’t mention what happens to them when they find explosives. Another dog recognized posthumously?

What a dubious distinction for a dog -- risking life and limb doing un-doggy things so humans can wage war more effectively – that is, kill and conquer other humans.

To continue reading, go to:
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/science-updates/patrick-the-abused-pit-bull-from-newark-got-lucky-most-animals-dont
#

Smart dogs don't make coffee

Recent radio news indicated that a few bomb-sniffing dogs at Philadelphia Airport failed their re-certifying tests. The announcer hurried to add that the dogs will be re-trained and no doubt test better next time.

Reportedly, these dogs "work daily to sharpen their craft"; the ranks of bomb-sniffing dogs are elite!

To all of which I say only, "Smart doggies!" Being a service animal is bad enough; being a successful bomb-sniffer is worse, especially if there's any chance you'll sound the alarm a few seconds too late.

I hope those dogs failed on purpose. Now they can relax for awhile and maybe even live doggie lives. They remind me of the stories years ago about women in offices who deliberately made terrible coffee in the break room. That cut their chances of ever being asked to make coffee again.

Good dogs!
#

So-called "service"

Lottie and Janet, from my last post, would have been considered “service animals” during their time as seeing-eye dogs. They would fall in the same category as the myriad animals drafted for service in wartime (see Veterans Day post).

Service animals have no choice! They are selected and trained to do things for humans, often things that have nothing to do with the lives they’d otherwise lead. They perform involuntarily and typically to their own detriment – static, robotic lives, ill health, death.

Non-human animals do not exist to serve human animals!

On Jan. 4 of this year, the NYTimes magazine ran a long story on the many ways that “service animals” help people. The story blurb read: “It's no longer just guide dogs for blind people. Service animals now include monkeys for quadriplegics, parrots for psychotics and at least one assistance duck. Should the law recognize all of them?” (Note: another service animal mentioned in the story: a guide miniature horse, pictured above. Advantages of the horse, named "Panda," included his mild and trainable nature and the fact that he could outlive five-seven seeing-eye dogs.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/magazine/04Creatures-t.html?emc=eta1

The letters to the editor in response to the story included one from a philosophy prof. His key points follow: “[The author] considers various moral and legal issues related to the use of exotic nonhuman species as guides for disabled humans. Except for one: the interests of the animals themselves. . . . they are persons in their own right, born with a capacity for natural freedom that their ''service'' entirely deprives them of.

“Guide animals are brutally separated from others of their kind, are discouraged from seeking affection from other human beings and are reduced to a life of perpetual bondage to their masters. If there is a meaningful difference between ''service animal'' and ''animal slave,'' I fail to see it.”
#