Large Fierce Mammal

All comments directed to my blog are subject to being moderated by me. I make a point of encouraging both positive and negative observations from my readers, and will never filter out comments just because they aren’t favourable to me or my subject matter, but what I will not tolerate is anyone who comments for the purpose of using my blog as a platform to reinvent the truth, launch personal attacks on other readers who have commented before them, or who seek to affect the willingness of others to comment at all.

Most of all, I will not tolerate comments from people who disrespect me, my work, and my audience by proving with their every word that they haven’t done us all the courtesy of actually reading the article they’re commenting on, but are reacting instead to what someone else has told them about it. This past Monday, I received two examples of just what I’m talking about, both aimed at my 31 January 2011 article, Bullied by the Nova Scotia SPCA?

The first of these was received at 20:55 from a Mr. Smith, and the second at 21:14 from a Mr. MacDonald, both on 28 February 2011, and both from the same IP address. As is required when posting comments to my blog, e-mail addresses were provided – a hotmail one for Mr. Smith, gmail for Mr. MacDonald. Since then, I have made multiple attempts to verify that the e-mail addresses provided with the comments were legitimate.

My first warning that things were not as they’d been painted was when my e-mail to the gmail address was replied to by a man in the United States telling me I got the wrong guy. Further testing with his kind cooperation confirmed that this was no accident or e-mail system error. Several attempts to verify the hotmail address have resulted in no reply whatsoever. I must now conclude that the people who made the two comments that are the subject of this article are akin to those who yell rude things at women in the street from the safety of moving automobiles – they lack the balls to speak otherwise.

The comments I’m referring to were in response to my 31 January 2011 article titled “Bullied by the Nova Scotia SPCA?”. If you haven’t read it before, you might want to do that now by clicking here. Even if you have read the article, you might want to check the comments it’s attracted in case there are some new ones you haven’t seen before.

Now on to the comments du jour, presented in the order they were received. Neither has been edited in any way, so each appears exactly as it was written by its author.

This from “Mr. Smith”:

in regards to the article that has been written about the spca’s lack of proper response . in this particular case i personally know the situation and i suggest that the proper guidelines have been followed. i also would like to say that the party the reported this to the spca would have to tresspas onto the property to have seen anything as the dog has adequate shelter a heated water dish and food. i also suggest that this person perhaps should [sweep their own doorstep before they sweep someone elses]. i happen to know the family and the animal and i personally just don’t see where the problem is other than a [ concerned] person has too much time on their hands . perhaps their time would be better spent in doing something constuctive rather thank invading someones privicy as this is exactly what this is as they would have had to trespass to be able to observe to either the animal or water or food dish , i know that animal cruelty is an issue but please make sure of the facts before you make calls to the authorities thank and goodday i trust the right persons read this and i’m sure we all know who i;m referring to

And a few minutes later from “Mr. MacDonald”:

Mister, you just been made a fool of with what these people have written. I don’t know how serious this website is, if you encourage your people to tell their story to fib but that is exactly what they did. If you are half the reporter you think you are, you would have done all your research like where the house is located. The house in question, is like 100 to 200 feet from the road up a hill with the dog being in behind the house. So to get as close as ‘legally’ possible would mean trespassing. They’d have to crawl up a hill on one side of the property OR actually walk up the driveway and walk all around the house to very back of house where the dishes are located up against the house. The dog house meets the proper standards of being insolated, off the ground, and a flap on the door. The dish is heated to prevent the water from freezing. I’m sorry but not all dogs are inside dogs. This dog does not like being inside for very long, he’s a herding dog and needs to be outside. This dog could be let loose to run the neighborhood, then the dog catcher would be called. I’d rather see the dog tied than to be caught or roadkill. Not every dog is a lap dog. Its unfortunate but that’s the way it is. The dog in question is fat and happy go lucky. Attacking the SPCA just because Wade was pissed of the false statement and being caught in a lie is just ridiculous. Its a waste of their time to check out these calls if they are bullshit. If its legit then they don’t mind making the calls, but to make a call and say the dish was frozen without even seeing it is against the law. So these people deserved to be reemed out. These people need to mind their own business…and stay the hell of said property. Just sayin’

Provided that one ignores his complete disdain for capitalization and punctuation, you can see that of the two, “Mr. Smith” is the most articulate and, at least on the surface, the most polite in his delivery. Just below the surface however, is the supreme insult – he obviously never read my article before commenting on it. I’ll reply to him first.

“Mr. Smith”, in hopes that your claim to personal knowledge of the situation that resulted in the SPCA complaint I spoke of in my article is more truthful than the identifying information you provided to me with your comment, I will take it at face value and pretend that you have not destroyed your credibility.

If you would do me the honour of actually reading my article, you will see that I went to great pains to highlight the fact that SPCANS specifically encourages the public to make reports of suspected animal cruelty or neglect. This is not the same as pre-investigated, confirmed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, bagged and tagged evidence with photographs and video, proof. As I stated in my article, which I still encourage you to read, if SPCANS doesn’t want to hear suspicions, then they shouldn’t ask for them.

“Proper guidelines” should have been to investigate and set the concerns of the complainant to rest by telling her all was as it should be. Instead, a citizen who complained in good faith of a suspicion of neglect and cruelty was treated as an offender. If you feel that constitutes the following of proper guidelines, then you need to pull your head out of your ass and look around – from the point I learned the scope of what had happened, my problem with this stopped being about one singular dog and started being about all the other animals that may be left to suffer in fear induced secrecy because the conduct that characterized this miserable excuse for an “investigation”, sanctioned I might add by no less than SPCANS itself, will silence the timid.

As if I needed more proof that the contents of my article are foreign to you – and do please read it when you get the chance, don’t take my word for it – you state, “i also would like to say that the party the reported this to the spca would have to tresspas onto the property to have seen anything”(sic).

“Mr. Smith”, at two points in my article, I make specific reference to the fact that the complainant suspected neglect of the dog, but was unable to confirm it because she could not do so without committing trespass. If your point was to prove your ignorance, you nailed it.

Whether or not you have actual first hand knowledge of the dog in question, I do have first hand personal and professional knowledge of the complainant. Because I know you haven’t read it, I will restate my opinion of her, as it appeared in my article : “I know the woman who was victimized in this situation to be a skilled and responsible dog owner. She has personally facilitated more than a few dog rescues and will no doubt continue to do so. She is more prone to be diplomatic than shrill.”

Your “… sweep their own doorstep …” line offends me because, as with most of your argument, it’s clearly uttered from ignorance in the spirit of personal axe grinding, and I find it doubly annoying that your mother has left it to me to teach manners to her clearly unschooled offspring.

I do not accept any argument that seeks to justify a dog living tied outside and alone, no matter what the breed and how palatial the accommodations. You clearly don’t have a problem with it, and your closing argument persists in suggesting that no complaint of animal abuse should be called in unless the investigation has been completed by a member of the public. All of this notwithstanding the fact that perpetrators of animal abuse are notorious for their secrecy and open hostility to anyone who attempts to confirm or obtain evidence of their actions.

Lastly, you say, “I trust the right persons read this and i’m sure we all know who i;m referring to,” (sic). Do we? What is that even supposed to mean? I can see a number of possible accusations and implications woven into this, but coming as it does from someone who can only see this situation as a personal affront, I will hereby grant it the same status as the rest your argument – worthless, and you should give thanks that I have wasted some minutes of my life I’ll never get back even replying to it.

Now on to “Mr. MacDonald”, he (or possibly even she) of the nonexistent gmail account. First off, I’m not sure what you mean by, “… you just been made a fool of what these people have written ….” Are you referring to the complainant’s statement I quoted in my article? The comments that follow it? Do you think I’m more than one person? Whatever, you seem to have spent at least a little time wallowing around in my blog, so for that I will grant you a pat on the head.

You clearly have doubt as to how serious my website is, and to that I would say this. The articles I write follow the paths of my interests, which are wide ranging, varied, and deep. When I write about something that matters to me, rest assured that both I and the articles I publish on those subjects are as serious as a fucking heart attack.

Unfortunately, you clearly either stalled out before finishing my article or lacked the equipment to understand what I wrote. I not only did all my research, but also spent some time reconnoitring the house in question. As was true for the complainant, I confirmed that close approach to the dog would necessitate trespass which would add one offense to the suspected other. Suspected “Mr. MacDonald” – do me the courtesy of actually reading the SPCANS links and website extracts in the article you pretend to be so knowledgeable about.

Your comment shows you share, with an unfortunately large portion of the population, that peculiar brand of stupidity and ignorance that finds it ever so easy to justify tying a dog alone and outside 12 months of the year. Any dog prefers to be outside, provided that it has a reason to be there beyond the fact that its owners prefer that it not be inside. You are correct that not all dogs are “inside” dogs insofar as not all like to be snuggled up in a warm room next to the fire – I know of a pack of sled dogs that shelter together at night in a specially designed but unheated room in their owner’s house. My personal pack includes no less than five herding dogs, so I need no advice from you. A herding dog does its work outside, with its handler. It doesn’t live there, and that fact doesn’t qualify it as a “lap dog”.

Your admission that the dog in question is “fat” gives me pause for concern because obesity in dogs is a reflection of inadequate exercise, overfeeding, an underlying health issue, or a combination of some or all of those. That being the case, it’s been my experience that most people who tie their dogs feel no obligation to exercise them. As to its being “happy go lucky”, it’s also been my experience that perpetually tied dogs are happy when they get attention. How happy is this dog when everybody leaves it there, a social animal with a drive to work with and for its handler, tied to its wonderfully sheltering and insulated prison?

Your reference to Wade Richard as “Wade” points to a degree of familiarity that suggests your problem with this has more to do with a sentiment of “my friend, right or wrong”. If you had read my article, you would know what I said about his conduct, and why. I don’t care how “pissed” he was, or how justified he felt in bullying the complainant. She followed published SPCANS guidelines in making her call, and specifically stated that she only suspected neglect. She had no ulterior motive, and did not deserve what came to her as a result of exercising her moral obligation.

And one last thing. If you’re going to rant, don’t end your diatribe with the words, “Just sayin'”. It’s meaningless and makes you look even more like a spineless lout yelling at me out the window of your car as you speed by in a perception of safety.