2007/03/26

Whack the Dogs

I can't put my finger on what I find so offensive about this, two Labradors who've had a 'hit' placed on them because they're particularly good at sniffing out contraband. But something about it is really rotten.

Is it that the poor dogs probably didn't have a choice about becoming 'polycarbonate sniffing pups'? Is it that they don't really know contraband from legal merchandise (they're just really good at finding discs hidden where they should not be)? Is it that they're just 'dumb animals' that don't deserve to get whacked? Perhaps it speaks to the desperation of a crime syndicate that would put a bounty on the furry heads of a pair of pooches?

I don't know. The dogs were taken into protective custody. So they'll probably survive to sniff another day, but it still seems wrong.

14 Comments:

There's no question that it's wrong and stupid and evil, but the people who put the contracts out are wrong, stupid, and evil people.
And yet our government STILL doesn't see the parallels between this and the Capone era...

Justice really IS blind.
Sewmouse, DBK...

But isn't it interesting that the dogs are getting better protection than many human whistle-blowers would receive. Just goes to show that if you've got the nose for high-value contraband, you're entitled to the best protection the government can offer. We humans are at a disadvantage.
Re: the better protection for the dogs - I have found that people get more outraged over abuses of animals than other people, so why should this be any different?

Of course the dogs do not deserved to get whacked, so I am glad they are in protective custody. Labradors are especially lovable dogs too.
Let's hope there's a canine witness relocation program. With any luck they're living it up in the suburbs.
Pam... No question our attachment to dogs is strong. I doubt if cats would even get the same treatment. Can you imagine cat contraband sniffers: "You want me to put my nose where?"

Comandante: Perhaps on a Malaysian beach, since that is where the incident occured.
the animals we bring into our lives- whether work animals or pets- are not able to care for themselves. wrong or not- in some regards animals are seen in the same light as people. these animals- the sniffers and the pets- did not ask for the lives we chose for them- we thrust it upon them. of course it is our duty to defend the defenseless.

having said that- i am a cat person. :)
Maybe they can put them in my custody and they can find the missing socks that one of my dogs seems to have an affinity for running off with.

I personally think that abuse towards animals is evil because it indicates a willingness to kill something that is usually innocent and poses no threat. There are dangerous dogs of course, but people usually abuse puppies or some friendly dog.
the good news is unless someone is stupid enough to put a big tag on them declaring "I am the sniffer dog you seek", these yellow labs will be able to go incognito among all other yellow labs in the world. I have no problem that these dogs were trained to sniff out contraband. Dogs love to please us & try their hardest to do what we ask. They are so happy to be able to complete any task to our satisfaction. My problem is this threatened "hit" will stop the sniffer dog program when other target groups see how effective it was in removing their "enemy". I predict high unemployment in the canine sector & many excellent working dogs thus finding themselves reduced to being loving companion pets again. The trickle down effect may cause companion pets to revolt. I know my Black Lab would NOT want to be shown up by some smarty-pants decommissioned trained sniffer that I might bring home for rehab. ~~ D.K.
Betmo... I agree, and attacking the helpless, as Scott suggests, is evil. At the very least is shows a serious character flaw.

Maybe they can put them in my custody and they can find the missing socks that one of my dogs seems to have an affinity for running off with.

Scott... I think that would only work if your socks are made of polycarbonate. ;-)

D.K... You know I never thought about the "meta-implications" of this. Maybe our presidential candidates could tell us their views of the impending crisis in the "canine employment sector".
Poor doggies! Amazing what dogs can be trained to do. Wonder if we could get them to sniff out Bush and Cheney.
It sounds like somebody's not too bright, #2, I'm guessing it's all about the money.....
TFWY... I suspect that you're right. Dogs are so at that kind of work that there will always be another pooch to take up the slack.

Peacechick... Personally I'd settle for teaching the dogs to crap in the shoes of anyone associated with Bu$hCo.
My youngest puppy started serious training today. She didn't learn too much for the first $300 of training. Now though, there are no treats and a trainer that is serious. Maybe I can train her to find the socks she took from me.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link