Monday, August 10, 2009

Proving My Innocence

Pursuant to my post on dog non-abuse, I am taking my hypothetical scenario one step further and thinking about how I would prove to authorities (or a judge or whomever) that I was actually a good dog owner. I'm envisioning a scenario where I am raided by AC, I behave badly at the time (Heaven forfend! I know none of you would, but I might) and they find a list of "offenses" similar to what we discussed in the previous post on the topic. Here's a list off the top of my head, please chime in if you have ideas:
  • Veterinary Records - Although my vet records will reveal that I do not comply with all the recommendations made by my Vet, I believe they would adequately demonstrate a long term commitment to care of the dogs, including puppies.
  • Photos/Videos - I take a lot of photos of the dogs, usually outside, and those could serve to document the appearance of healthy dogs and clean yard over the long term.
  • Testimonials - I could request eyewitness testimonials regarding the care of our dogs from people who have been to our house and/or bought pups from us. I'm not sure how useful those would be because someone would have to actually sit down and read them which might be outside the realm of reasonable expectation.
  • Certificates - I could compile documentation of any achievements for which the dogs have earned recognition such as earning a Canine Good Citizen award.
  • Community Service - I might offer this blog as a means of demonstrating my volunteer commitment to the promotion of responsible dog ownership. I donate to my local no kill shelter as well although I have always declined getting a receipt for the donations. Maybe I should start accepting receipts and saving them.
What else would help convince someone I am not a (complete) loon, despite my less than desirable behavior during the raid and the supposed offenses of which I might be accused? How would you defend yourself if it ever became necessary?


EmilyS said...

your website. According to Terrierman, having links to black helicopter paranoia sites proves you're unreliable and probably guilty. (or so he wrote about

PBurns said...

Once again, EmilyS has nothing to say based in reality. She really is a lunatic babbler.

What I said was that the web site in question takes GREAT PRIDE in not being objective. That's its thing. It says so right on the front page, doesn't it. And so, I quite reasonably ask, if a story is being told by that web site, and NO OTHER information is available, can we trust it?

And the answer is, as we now know, is: NO.

On almost every single point of fact that web site was WRONG. The limit on dogs was not new; it was 25 years old. The "raid" was not without notice -- she had been visited twice before and thrown rocks at the SPCA. Her kennels were filthy, the dogs were infested, the ceiling was coming down, and walls were in disrepair, and some of the dogs needed medical attention. And that's to say nothing about being 13 dogs over the limit.

For the record, you do not need to "prove innocence" with dogs; you just have to demonstrate some common sense responsibility. That means decent food, clean water, and clean housing free of cold and wet. If those are met, and provided your dogs are not waking the dead by barking 24-hours a day, and you are not way over the limit in an urban area, and your are not leaping the fence to bite the neighbors, you will never see the SPCA. They have better things to do.

If they do visit, yes, they like to see a rabies vaccine, but they care about no other vaccine. Some places require a local dog license. That's it. Dog log is not complex. They will let ANYONE have a dog -- even someone has mentally unbalanced and ignorant as EmilyS ;)


EmilyS said...

oh Patrick.. you left out the part in your blog where you said that she's guilty because.. she acts guilty when confronted with a mass of ACO on her doorstep in the middle of the night. You just love you some authority figures don't you? And you just get all hot and bothered if someone like me doesn't think YOU'RE an authority figure. Too bad that people are discovering what an ignorant a**h*** you are about every subject, except MAYBE JRTs. Though considering the complete blather you post about other breeds, I'm beginning to wonder whether you actually know anything about terriers at all..

p.s. I'm not a dogfighter, though you assert that "most, oh cross that out, "many" pit bull owners are. My scary dogs would just intimidate the h*** out of you, though. Guess we'd better have some laws to force me to take them to extra classes. But not YOUR breed, eh? Even though their owners are known for allowing their dogs to become one of the most biting breeds in the country. Yeah, you're a hypocrite, too.

Caveat said...

Oh, is Patrick now saying that many APBT owners are dog-fighters? I stopped reading his posts about 'pit bulls' because they were nonsensical. I don't know how many times I've explained that 'pit bulls' - all the breeds and mutts combined - are not 'large' dogs and that's just one example.

And the proof for this statement exists where? Does he know that the APBT is one of the most popular registered purebreds in the US? There are an estimated 3 million-plus APBTs alone. How common do people think dog-fighting is, anyway? 'Many' is pretty vague anyway. Dog-fighters aren't walking their dogs down the street with the family, taking them to dog parks or PetSmart or the vet's, showing up at Agility/Rally-O/Obedience/Conformation competitions.

They are already criminals, so the old 'let's ban 'pit bulls' to thwart dog-fighters' illogic doesn't hold water. The ignore the law, see? And keep their mutts underground. They are unaffected by 'breed' (ha ha ha) bans.

They use their dogs illegally (since dog-fighting has been outlawed nationwide, very recently in some areas) to fight other animals.

What happens when using your dogs to fight other animals, as the 'dog diggers' do, becomes illegal? All of a sudden you go from being a fake-macho know-it-all full of half-baked opinions about other people and their dogs to being a criminal. Looking and acting guilty when the uniforms show up at your pad in the middle of the night.

Go figure.

btw I always think that when someone gets to the point of childish name-calling, as Patrick did about Emily, they're pretty much admitting they either haven't got a leg to stand on or can't come up with a reasonable argument in response to criticism.

Either way, they lose their temper and they lose the game.

And I'm more of a fan of T-man than a lot of people are - when he sticks to what he knows. I do agree that violating standard of care regulations is grounds for a search/seizure op. I can't comment on the case at hand because I don't know anything about it. That said, these laws need tightening up because people's rights are being trampled.

Caveat said...

PS I wonder when the H$U$ will start in on terrier people, the way they have all the others from hunters to breeders to garden-variety pet owners?

I mean, when you think about it, what these dog diggers are doing is tormenting and killing animals that are resting in their dens for no good reason other than that some people find them a nuisance. Or worse, just for fun because they can.

I suppose what will keep them safe, for a little while anyway, is the fact that there are very few of them. The practice is atavistic and most people would find it distasteful. I guess that makes it easier to become an 'expert' as well - there aren't many people who can contradict you when your niche is such a small one.

The trick, as always, is not to start believing your own bulls**t.

Over and out - sorry, Pat, couldn't resist such low-hanging fruit.

some random female said...

Good post! [Also, an odd venue for an argument to break out.]

Here's a thought, and I need to do this myself, too, I think. Maybe keep really good at home records about various "treatments," grooming procedures, etc., including documentation of observations, things you are keeping an eye on to bring up at your next vet visit, stuff like that?

It could be as simple as noting the stuff like heartworm/deworming meds and flea treatments, routine baths, nails, ear cleaning, tooth brushing, and the like on the calendar. There always seem to be claims of "parasites" (never specifying which ones), skin problems, and "infections." This would go some way towards countering those. [I'm imagining my one dog, who flirts with the ear issues, being cited as having an infection--well yeah, but we're TREATING it.]

Receipts for (say) Frontline and Interceptor, which showed that you're buying the stuff on a regular enough basis that it must be getting used somewhere probably wouldn't hurt either.

lynnO said...

But if we're innocent until proven guilty, WHY must you prove your innocence?

The Dog House said...

Ah... but, SomeRandomFemale, the problem is that soooo many of us (read the original post and following comments) do NOT do regular baths, nail trims, parasite preventatives, etc. Why? Well, personally, because my dogs don't need it. Doesn't make me any less of a responsible owner than someone who does perform the above items on a regular basis.

some random female said...

"read the original post"

I did. What I took away is that the author does hella lot for her dogs, albeit different stuff than the examples I gave. Everyone's stuff would be different. Substitute "trim ear mats" for routine bathing.

It's just a brainstorming type suggestion.