Another dog abuse PB Fla.Sheriff s Dept - Page 11

Google USPCA....I think that will answer all your questions, they were there then🤷‍♀️.

Susie, I understand and agree about the dog. I don't like how it looks, but I have seen "ok" dogs look like that and we don't know the reason.

I also agree 60 hours is likely not necessary and not what I refer to when I say I fast my dogs weekly (I mean they skip one day).

Nobody has promoted not feeding a dog for 2 1/2 days in training. NOBODY!
Also, as Jenni has said though the OP dog doesn't look ideal,  it does NOT mean the dog is unhealthy...maybe it is, maybe it isn't? Righteous indignation doesn't make something right, getting the facts on the dogs actual health does. Jmo

You still didn't get the point.

Gustav, I googled USPCA, the organization was founded in 1971, the membership still seems to be voluntary...that said you either care , or you don't. What's the percentage of handlers who do care ( and cared in the 70s ) in correliation to the total amount of dogs "in duty"? Is the any duty to do so ( I know for sure it neither has been in the 70s nor in the 80s ).
How many dogs have been certified according to USPCA in the seventies???
How many TODAY? Percentage?
The departments we sent the dogs to were not affiliated with USPCA...and we sent dogs to a lot of different departments /states.Can 't have been that big deal during that time..
Hopefully it is today.

Jenny, we could feed our human toddlers well for 4 1/2 days every week, afterwards fasten them for 2 1/2 days.
In case they get enough calories the body won't mind...would any responsible parent do so?
Wrong remains wrong, senseless remains senseless.

Besides that NOBODY said anything about the newer knowledge (at least 20 years old 😎 ) about the correliation feeding/training I mentioned on page 3.
Either nobody seems to know, or nobody seems to care . The crux of this board.

What do I want to say?
We are living in 2017, not in 1975.
TODAY we know a lot more about dog behavior than 40 years ago - it's NOT NECESSARY to starve a dog for 60 hours to perform well any more-we KNOW BETTER.
But as soon someone is not willing to use humane training methods although it's possible it's abuse.
100 years ago dentists pulled teeth without anaesthesia - it worked. Any dentist pulling teeth without anaesthesia TODAY is wrong, ABUSING it's patient. It's called "progress"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Ditto, this is what I'm commenting on too. If you have to starve a dog for 60 hours per week, you'v either got the wrong dog or a shitty trainer. This IS 2017! We've got high quality dogs with insane amount of food drives and hunt drive galore. We've got knowledge that people in the 70's didn't possess.

And if you haven't trained dogs in 10 or 20s years, than you stopped progressing!

Susie, a dog is not a toddler and vice versa. I don't fast puppies. I fast adults.

Maybe nobody said anything about the feeding/training you mentioned on page 3 because nobody is arguing that fasting a dog for 60 hours is the "right" thing to do. I didn't see one person saying what was supposedly going on w/the dept was "right." I got sucked into this insane vortex because I commented on someone's false statement that 30 hours without food is "dangerous." I said numerous times my comment wasn't regarding the dog in the pic/article, but no one wanted to listen to that, and instead kept harping on people thinking starving dogs is ok, which no one suggested.

@Jenn I don't think "no one wanted to listen" to you is quite accurate; re-read my posts for a start; but if we continue to come back to the dog in Kitkat's OP, and whether it looks healthy or not, and whether its condition COULD have been brought about by the 60 hour starvation method, and whether there is (or was ever) justification for that, then we are only trying to stay "On Topic".

@Gustav, I am so sorry if I have completely misinterpreted what you have said on this thred; BUT consider:  that IMMEDIATELY AFTER Kitkat put up her 3-post plus photo thred-starter, questioning the views of the Vets involved, the only other comment before yours being Kim saying it looked as if it could be an EPI case, you posted (page 1):

"If many of today's people were able to view marine training today they would call it abusive, trust me.

"Fortunately I trust the military with policies and procedures tested over hundreds and thousands of recruits than (sic) I trust people who often judge based on emotion, their preferences, and oftentimes personal agendas."

Despite your switching to a comparison with humans, it is hardly unreasonable to think this was the point at which most of the rest of us who have contributed subsequently will have believed you were saying it was/would be 'okay' to have that dog that thin ...

or why the post, at all ?  In your next post (page 2) you were again not commenting directly on the dog in the photo, but your were extolling the 'no feeding over weekends' practice. And on page 5 your post ends:

"Being as this dog is in a para military program the possibility definitely exists that the dog is fine in health".  Of course it does exist, but it it likely ?

 

On subsequent pages, both Susie and I have asked about the reason and logic for the MWD program that both you and Deacon are supportive of - and yet you said (page 5) that:

"I don't pass judgement on things until I understand the reason and logic; and when it comes to my dogs I am governed by logic and knowledge, never feelings or emotions ..." - so you are denying others that which you demand for yourself ?

I rescued one of the dogs in question. It is very obvious that this dog was abused and not fed. The kennel I got him from could not resell him because he was so messed up. His drive is out of this world and is an awesome dope dog. It's just a shame those guys ruined him. He's in a great loving family now with a big brother Malinois.