воскресенье, 27 сентября 2015 г.


    As reported today, a Nigerian news https://www.naij.com/, in the last days of this month to come very expensive in its composition weight. The fact that the US National Zoo decided to release its two lions, which are quite lived within the city life, and is now in need of a natural conversation.
    Category: articles

    Joe lives on a completely isolated island where he has the only dogs—a nice, happy, healthy, beautiful, unrelated adult male and female.  Joe asks everyone on the island, and 4 of them would really like a puppy and are committed and capable of providing a great home and life.  Should Joe breed?

    NO!  Joe should NOT breed because he might produce more than 4 puppies.  It is better to let the species go extinct than risk having a surplus.
    YES! Joe should breed so that there are future dogs, 4 of whom have great homes.  If there are more than 4 puppies, he should place the healthiest, nicest, best structured puppies in the 4 homes, house any extras humanely (in a shelter or with Joe) until a home becomes available or they die of old age.
    YES! Joe should breed so that there are future dogs, 4 of whom have great homes.  If there are more than 4 puppies, he should place the 4 healthiest, nicest, best structured puppies in the 4 homes, and try to place the others, but if after all reasonable efforts have been expended there remain any surplus puppies, their lives should be ended as quickly and painlessly as possible.
    Which of these do you believe is the right choice and why?

    (Of course, this is not intended to be read literally—it is ridiculously inaccurate and oversimplified. And I am sure many people will point out the many complications that prevent this question from being applied to reality… It is intended as a thought experiment—a small isolated question to think about that might help to clarify an underlying core notion. In my opinion, anyone who is going to contribute to discourse on the topics of breeding and rescue and reducing shelter populations ought to have thoroughly considered this question.)
    Category: articles

    The story of Noah is one of the earliest and most poignant tales of the vital interconnectedness between man and animals: a story about how every animal on the planet survived solely because man brought them in and protected them from God and Nature…

    IIMG_0432n retelling this story, Paramount decided to use virtually no live animals in the film, relying upon computer generated imagery to portray the animals.

    I have no problem with CGI—in many cases it can do things live animals cannot; although I might hesitate to watch a movie in which all the animals were CGI, as I find such portrayals have less heart and are less interesting. And I would likely avoid any film released in partnership with HSUS. But neither of these is the issue I want to discuss herein:

    Paramount and HSUS have suggested that by not utilizing live animals, they did those animals a service—they prevented them from being forced to work on this project. This assertion I vehemently dispute.  They did these animals a grave disservice—not only did they deprive them of the joy they would have experienced during production, but they prevented them from earning considerable money that would have made their lives, and the lives of other animals, better.

    gamblelakebakerI have been privileged to spend hundreds of days on sets with thousands of animals of nearly every species imaginable.  I have collaborated with many of the trainers and companies in North America. And almost without exception I have observed happy, healthy animals having a great time. From the animals’ perspective, they get to spend several weeks going somewhere interesting and comfortable, and playing a great game in which they get lots of treats and praise. They shove each other in the morning trying to get into the vehicle to go to set, and they wag and smile the whole time they are there. No question, there have been some much-publicized exceptions in which accidents or horrid people have caused harm to animals, and I have no doubt there are some unscrupulous animal trainers still in the industry that should not be used, but there are few industries with as much oversight and better track records than modern animal training. If any one of you doubts that the animals love this undertaking, try an experiment—cut up a few hot dogs, grab a few toys, and take your dog into the back yard and spend ten minutes playing with him and teaching him a new trick.  Then tell me whether the animal seemed miserable and exploited, or ecstatic and delighted. Almost every animal loves the game of learning and performing tricks, and those who prefer other activities are not “forced” as they simply would not be successful in film-work.

    Some will point out that as an animal trainer I have a fiscal incentive and a perspective that make it unlikely for me to be objective. In truth, I made a much better income in my prior career than I do as an animal trainer–I do this because I love animals.  I love spending my days with them, bringing them joy, sharing them with the world in film.  I do this because I experience every day that animals can have lives with humans that are very bit as rich and full as any they could have in the wild. The idyllic wild is a myth–it never really existed and it certainly does not today.  If most species are going to survive this century, they are going to do so within man’s ark, with our devotion and affection.

    Animal trainers spend nearly all the money they earn on their animals. It might be nice if we lived in a world in which work was IMG_4279not required, and we could all just lounge around, but we do not.  Each of us works to survive, the lucky among us having a great deal of fun doing so.  Every wild animal “works” very hard almost every minute of their generally short lives to find food and stay alive.  Movie animals generally perform a few hours per year, have a great time and never even know they are “working.” In exchange they get pampered lives that are far longer and more comfortable than almost any other life on the planet.  They are kept safe and healthy.  They have optimal nutrition and clean water. They are given enrichment, companionship, games, medicine.  They are kept free from parasites. They are loved and cherished and their every desire fulfilled. There are very few humans or animals on the planet that have it as good as movie animals.
    Category: articles

    Whether you acquire your dog from rescue or a breeder or some other path, you need to be unwaveringly committed to keeping that dog for the duration of its life. If you cannot be absolutely certain that you will be able to care for this dog for the next 17 years, you have no business getting a dog.
    Every one of us has heard this countless times, and probably said something similar ourselves.  The problem is that while the intent—trying to get people to understand that a pet is a serious long-term commitment and not something to attempt lightly—is excellent, the specifics are often quite wrong and significantly harmful:Older-2
    1. Pretty much no honest person can genuinely make this commitment.  Who knows what bizarre twists and turns life may take.  You may end up dead, ill, homeless, whatever.  By requiring animal owners to make this eternal vow, we eliminate nearly all homes except those that are dishonest enough to pretend that they can promise the future.
    2. Millions of nice pets end up languishing in yards, kennels, and crates for years because the owners are ashamed to be derided and despised if they admit they cannot live up to this ideal.
    3. Many animals end up dumped somewhere to suffer simply because the person could not face the shame of rehoming their dog or walking into a shelter.
    Category: articles

    I was conversing with a friend recently who does not train her dogs beyond the minimum required. She does not want to diminish their individuality, to be their master, to break their spirits, to turn them into automatons. She does not even really want them to be obedient—she wants them to do what they want, not her bidding.

    As we talked, it became clear to me that her idea of training is something very different from mine. She perceives it as diminishing—removing unwanted parts of a dog, while I perceive it as enriching—nurturing and developing additional facets of a dog.

    Dog training is a broad catch-all term encompassing a huge range of techniques used to modify the intensity and frequency with which a dog offers certain behaviors. The goals, objectives, and methods are nearly infinite. Of course, in the strictest sense of the word dogs are always learning, so you are always training them whether you mean to or not, you only get to decide what they are learning. But for the purposes of this post, I am talking about structured intentional training, and I want to share why I train my dogs:
    Category: articles