Dog Rescue: Penultimate Post – Not Great News.

An update on what can happen when hard arsed hunting folk meet the brick wall of a libertarian nut-job: appallingly, a Labrador dog may next week be shot, though I hope not.

Importantly, a note about privacy and the people involved in this first, because I have been personally struggling with some aspects of it: I don’t particularly like looking over my neighbour’s fence. I am one of the most private of people, and I would be mortified, then furious, if someone were spying over my fence, and privacy forms a pervasive theme in this blog, given the police state is the absence of same. So this is how I rationalise it: the privacy concerns in this blog chiefly concern privacy from the intrusive state, as the state is the only power that can breach privacy with impunity, indeed, specifically legislates itself the right. To take my property and my freedoms from me, the state first had to do away with my privacy, or more precisely, my right to be left alone, hence, the new surveillance states we live in. Whoops politicking … I believe that if you initiate force that is not self-defence, then you lose your right to be left alone, obviously: that’s why we have the law. I would differ from Objectivists, proper, by then carrying the non-initiation of force (or cruelty) principle over to protecting an animal, and I have no compunction about that at all: I explained why in this earlier post. That said, I have never on this blog named the people involved in this rotten affair regarding the dog, nor, at this stage, do I intend to ‘name and shame’. There’s a great image Kundera evokes in his novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being:

When she told her French friends about it, they were amazed. "You mean you don't want to fight the occupation of your country?" She would have liked to tell them that behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil and that the image of that evil was a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unison. But she knew she would never be able to make them understand.

The quotation doesn’t relate to privacy, not directly at least, but there’s an undertone in that paragraph about ‘being careful’ not to be subsumed unthinkingly in affairs that are emotionally charged – thinking over feeling,again  – and moreover, there’s a bullying menace to indiscriminate naming and shaming: as Kundera says, a ‘more basic, pervasive evil’ that I am wholly uncomfortable with, even here, though I’m not counting it out.

This is complicated. No, no, sorry those who would advocate the instant outing, this IS complicated. I hate the way it’s going, but my hotheadedness probably hasn’t helped: I’ve pushed the dog owners’ concerned into a corner by being so much on their case. Regardless, the final result is now going to be known Friday (read following), and naming and shaming would a) just make things worse at the moment, and b) is not warranted yet.

The origins of my recent dog rescue posts can be read at the bottom of this post: a voluntary dog ownership guide for the clueless. 

From that, and after hoping the issues regarding the dog involved were resolved in earlier remonstrations with the dog’s owners, they quickly slipped back into their old ways, leading to the issue coming to a head again this Sunday, when, with no one at the their house, I had to go over and feed their dog, and put this note on their door.

The below email sent to two interested blog readers, sums up the aftermath, vis a vis yesterday’s ‘negotiations’ – I’ve extended it where necessary: 

Cheers xxxx

I'm not too sure what to do at the moment. This is ornery folk with a dreadful view of animals, but on own terms, human to human, can be fine. Up until we fell out over the welfare of their dog, they've been good neighbours. I'm just done talking to her now, and her/their position is they're going to try and find dog another home this week, (despite our offer to take her) otherwise, quote: 'they'll have it shot. That's the thing about animals, we can shoot them, problem gone'.

The dog is currently not on their premises; it hasn't been since last night. I said to ‘the mother’, do not have the dog shot, we will take it on. But she is adamant, 'it's her problem'. Sadly, I suspect that's my fault, because the message I left them on Sunday said 'the last thing we need is another big dog, but we'll take your dog on' ... that was stupid. She may be 'proudly not giving me a problem'.

It’s not against the law to shoot your dog, so long as done 'humanely', whatever that means. She might just be bluffing to get at me, I've no idea. Part of the problem is she works long shifts, and she's tired, and the dog is just another problem she doesn't need: but still, because we have offered to take the dog on, that's not good enough. She does have an option, but either does seriously see it as 'her problem, she'll fix it', or is so angry with me she thinks she's 'getting at me', because I have been a pain for a while now, given I 'see red' over animal welfare issues. Pauline is making phone calls to various authorities this afternoon and tomorrow morning, including the local SPCA.

Regards Mark

 Will keep you up to date … I'll ring them again within the week, hoping it is partly hot air, currently, and they'll climb down. And in the meantime, I've actually got to get some work done.

Oh, one thing, and it sounds awful, but the dog has had no emotional input: it's never had company of other dogs, or a kind word spoken to it from a human, yet its kept in conditions that would be hard for SPCA to prove outright abuse (it's a high threshold). For example: after I went over on Sunday and gave her some biscuits and a pat, she never barked again, so she obviously was hungry, and I'm wondering if she had anything to eat Friday, which she spent wholly in her kennel, after I went over and put her in her kennel Thursday night when it was raining, and took some biscuits with me – when she’s not in the kennel she’s tied to a tree on a two metre chain, and can’t get out of rain and weather, though there is some shade -  but I can only surmise that, I can't prove anything. And she doesn't appear to be emaciated. So given the no-mans land she appears to be stuck in, and heaven only knows what sort of other home they would find her, in that sense she would be better off dead, frankly, rather than carrying on as the living dead (and they certainly won't be getting another dog while we're here). It’s just that in every contact I've had with her (the dog) recently, she appears to have a lovely nature, against all the odds, so we want a go to see if she can be retrained as an inside, family dog. I'll let matters cool down a day or two and see where we are then.

Humans. They're over-rated.

I doubt if the dog’s owners are reading this blog, I’m sure they would have told me yesterday if that were the case, and I’m not too concerned if they do anymore given for now I’m keeping all names out. Hence this update.

My wife has since talked to SPCA, and I’m afraid, as wiser heads had warned me, they’re not much use. Dog owner’s not liking dogs, is not abuse. And yes, I think the care of this dog is atrocious, and it is, but proving actual abuse is another matter altogether; the owners for the most part have, eventually, given her enough dirty water, and enough of the cheapest form of dry biscuit to keep her alive. Plus it’s not against the law to shoot your dog, so long as you do so humanely – proving you can have all the laws, regulation and state bullying for people to do the right thing you like, that doesn’t make the people who need to be, civilised: that can only be had by changing people’s minds. Worse, the dog, a Labrador, is six coming on seven year old, a bit older than we thought, and re-housing that age dog that has lived as spartan as this one, is probably impossible outside ourselves.

Anyway, back on track, in yesterday’s discussion, I typically thought of what I should have said only afterward, so luckily I’ve still got one chance left. ‘The Mum’ is not threatening to have dog shot until next week – and yeah, oh course they wouldn’t think of a peaceful euthanasia. So I’m ringing a last time on Friday, with my final argument being along the lines of it is now not just the owner’s problem anymore, as she says it is, for by saying as the result of my pestering she plans to shoot the dog, she has made it my problem.  More pertinently, if she has the dog shot when I have said I'll take the dog into our care, then she is shooting a dog only to get at me, and couldn’t care less about its welfare, despite her verbal protestations regarding ‘working long hours’ (which is a copout anyway, but I let that slide while talking). Obviously that would put her on the highest order of evil, but then, as she says, ‘it’s just an animal, we can shoot them, problem solved’. Something still makes me think she’s just bluffing and venting, albeit, if it does come to that, then I guess one hard arsed libertarian nut-job will lose it in a (hopefully) controlled explosion.

I don’t know if I’ll get a chance to update this blog on the result, sorry, until between Christmas and New Year. I need to be doing many more hours working than I am, and we have a house in the Mahau Sound we’re trying to get to Boxing Day for a break. Although, should we manage to get the dog, that in itself will be a huge bunch of problems; not the least of which is the Hubbards’ are a three member family now, two adults and one small Daisy Dog, and we have packing and traveling between Geraldine  and the Sounds , an eight hour day, in our zippy little Ford Focus down to an art form. A Labrador dog will disrupt all that, and I guess I would be in the market for a station wagon next week, pending Friday’s discussions, when we thought our big dog station wagon days were well over. Mind you, a couple of weeks in the Sounds would be a perfect place to start house-training a dog that has never seen the inside of a house before.

Jesus.

Four things only can result from here:

(1) The dog’s owners find another home for her where the people are able to care for her properly – and hopefully they actually like dogs. Personally, reservations about this as I’ll have no way of knowing what the future welfare of the dog will be (especially if another bloody hunter – sorry for the ‘decent’ hunters who read this blog, but I’ve stated my views on hunting, at the beginning of this, and those views are only hardening).

Or (2), we’ll take over care of the pooch. Huge curve from there, re-training, syncing in with Daisy which is a big concern as Daisy is used to 100% of our attention, us, etc. Pauline and I are reticent about the notion of taking her on, this is largely forced on us, and it’s a hell of an upheaval, given after three Great Danes across our marriage, our responsibilities now all cared for, we had deliberately planned for the mobile family we’ve become; however, when dealing with this dog, she’s had a shit life to date, and we’d love to have a go at giving her a doggy heaven for the last part of it, given the chance. (Or at the very least getting her house trained, see what sort of a dog she can be - we have no idea what behavioural issues she now has - in view of finding a good home).

Or (3), the pooch will be shot, at which stage this issue will unfortunately go nuclear.

Though fourthly, the only certainty: Boxing Night, I will be sitting on my balcony, in the Mahau, looking at this:

 … with a bottle of wine, and pleasantly tiddly. 2012 has been a rotten year in many ways, not just this dog; I’m over it.

There may be one more tax post next week, but now I’ve got to work …

Finally, remember my dog guide to the clueless (scroll down for rules): apart from what I will call hunters’ heartlessness, in this case, some type of basic empathy missing in this family’s make-up, remembering this dog is the son’s who has now left home, this family initially broke the following rule:

If you are buying a dog as an accessory for your five year old child, stop, read William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, and bugger off. The dog doesn’t need you.

This dog very definitely did not need these people.

Dog ownership is no different to thinking about family size: you’ve got to think about it, from conception and then over the entire life of the sprog or dog. It requires time. It requires financial resources. It requires, believe it or not, intellectual wherewithal. And only after that, it most importantly requires you to want a dog or sprog in your family because it betters your life, and you love having them. Having sprogs or dogs is not mandatory, and if you’re not equipped, then don’t do either. Those in society who do not think about these issues just cause chaos for the rest of us who have to clean up after them. Through a coercive tax system, and then nonsense like this, I’m ‘over’ the stupid, slave society voted in by our social(alist) democracy: generation text would say it’s a bit shit, I would say it’s damned evil, and growing worse, daily

Now I’ve mentioned children and family size, if you still have a spare minute, spend it reading Liberty Scott’s succinct philosophic demolition of Office of the Children's Commissioner Report on Child Poverty in New Zealand. Hell, meet the hand-cart …