HOW I SEE IT: Hunting dogs keep being mistreated
Published: December 1, 2009
Updated: December 1, 2009
Star-Exponent columnist Hope Smith’s op-ed Friday, “No matter what their purpose, dogs need our respect, too,” was a well written, thoughtful, and compassionate contribution to the opinion pages. Much to her credit, she directly but very diplomatically talked about her concerns over the issue of the mistreatment and neglect of hunting dogs.
Smith kept the tone of her column tip-toed and careful, mildly suggesting that hunting dog neglect is already a current problem here locally and more broadly speaking. The issue is in fact a serious animal welfare issue badly deserving of investigative reporting.
In my and others’ opinions, it has been sadly under reported, irresponsibly so. The mistreatment of hunting dogs has become so unacceptably commonplace that compassionate citizens are beginning to speak out in defense of these good-natured, intelligent and loving dogs.
One other compassionate person speaking out is my own daughter, Allyson, who is a practicing licensed vet tech in the region. She has seen and treated many hunting dogs. I offer her commentary on the issue; these are her unedited words:
“In my experience working as a veterinary technician in Warrenton, there were many occasions where I helped treat sick or injured hounds that were fox hunting dogs. As these dogs are typically kept in kennels outside, often concrete, it was common for them to have decubital ulcers (aka pressure sores) on their under bellies and bony protrusions.
“The hounds were kept in very thin body condition, whether that was intentional to make them faster and more driven by hunger in pursuit of the fox or due to a degree of neglect, we couldn’t be completely sure. This made their pressure sores much more pronounced on bony sternums, elbows, and hocks.
“Animals that are kenneled, often in close quarters and without much human contact, for the majority of their life have increased stress. Stressful living conditions, in combination with the animals being intact (or not neutered), breeds conflict. The male hounds were kept intact, as there is argument for the animals working or performing better when influenced by excessive testosterone. These conditions made it quite common for the animals to fight and have resulting open wounds or old scars.”
It will be a surprise if columnist Smith and her “call to care” for hunting dogs somehow manage to dodge the proverbial bullets of typically hyper defensive hunters.
Even though she was delicate and nonconfrontational, she may still receive some hot disparagement from local hunters.
I know from experience that tackling the sport-hunting fraternity that any criticism of the “sport” whatsoever, whether the inherent cruelty to animals involved or perhaps the utter failure of regulated hunting to adequately manage healthy wildlife populations, like overpopulating deer for instance, is always met, always, by open hostility.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Actually, I am not the only individual that has verified with your employers that you have not treated working dogs.
I am merely independently verifying statements made. You have made all your information publicly available. Your work history, your schooling, and some extremely personal information. Actually, I was quite surprised. Initially, I was just a little curious because the assertion was so…. odd.
I haven’t been aggressive or hostile. Quite the opposite, actually. You are the one threatening me.
The original editorial was a gentle reminder to us all to care for our pets. I appreciated the reminder, and since I am active in animal welfare work I hope others take her words to heart. Whether or not the person is a hunter is irrelevant to me.
I respect and appreciate the fact that not all people approve of hunting, or eating meat, or wearing leather. I also respect and appreciate that these people have a right to advocate for their beliefs and values.
Where I draw that line is using misinformation, falsehoods and emotional manipulation to force others into complying with a set of values or beliefs.
It is difficult to advocate for animal welfare issues without being branded a nut or animal rights radical. Especially when something like this is brought to light. It puts us all in a bad light.
Again, I’m not hostile, I’m not “debating”, and I don’t know why you’re getting so hysterical.
The public is able to determine the status of licensed professionals, and your resume is extremely public. I am a client of the veterinarian you worked for.
I don’t really care about your opinion regarding wildlife management, and I really don’t care about your vet tech career.
I do expect that when people try to convince me to change my mind - that their assertions can withstand scrutiny.
I’ll continue working on animal welfare issues in a more productive and less confrontational manner, if you don’t mind.
Good day.
In response to the verbal attack posted by username “Bywater” -
Sir (as I assume you are by your ever so demeaning addressing of me as “Yound lady”), you have now advanced to not only being hostile and insulting, but are tip toe-ing all too close to the realm of slander. You have NO verifiable grounds to claim my work history is invalid. You have NOT contacted each of my prior employers individually, as I have spoken with one of them today on the matter. You also have NO way to prove my experience with “working dogs.“ This is bordering on the time when I will be forced to seek legal advice regarding your attempt to discredit and slander my name and my professional credibility. EVERY statement I have made has been 100% accurate. If you make one more aggressive statement or interefere with any more of my personal matters (including prior or current employers) without authorization, I WILL take action against you. This is so sad you have decided to leave the realm of healthy debate and advance to sheer hostility. Likely due to the lack of solid ground you have to stand upon, SIR. Why don’t you try to spend more time researching valid topics like why sport hunting is complete mismanagement of wildlife populations rather than attacking me in a very juvenile manner. As previously stated, this is a warning.
Actually, Ms. Kirk, I located your resume via an Internet search. I contacted each of your employers and verified, independently, that you have never treated ANY working dog. Not even in your volunteer work. You do appear to like being interviewed, though.
I am not being hostile at all. I am merely ascertaining whether or not people are making up stories to further their agenda. I don’t care what that agenda is - whether it’s pro or anti hunting.
I just don’t like being lied to. You lied. Your father is also an extremely left wing anti-hunter with a rather creative take on wildlife management. One that is shared by practically no one.
Again, I respect everyone’s opinion, as long as their views are honestly held, and they are honest people who simply wish to do good in the world.
You do not appear to be an honest person, as I have discovered - using YOUR resume and credentials YOU posted on the Internet, that you have lied. And you continue to lie - accusing me of being hostile is laughable. You lied in a public venue and the public has every right to find out if you’re telling the truth.
Well young lady, I don’t care what your views are - you are not going to win people over by lying to them. You have no credibility, and neither does your father.
I have spent many years working in animal rescue, and am a vociferous and passionate advocate for animal welfare. I have managed to do good in the world without lying to people, perpetuating stereotypes of minority groups, and working with different stakeholders towards a common goal. I have also found American sportsmen to be every bit as concerned about animal welfare, they just think hunting is humane and ethical. You are free to disagree - but you are NOT free to lie to people.
Young lady, you and your father need to learn a very simple truth. The ends do not justify the means. You cannot lie to people and remain credible.
Please note that I have not disparaged you in any way, and am not hostile at all. I am merely disgusted.
I did nothing to you.
You were hoisted by your own petard.
Hunting dog debate aside, the apple appears to have come to rest in close proximity to the tree.
BTW -Hope seemed to hae “doddged that bullet” while you didn’t. Womder why?
Kirk, it’s obvious you have an agenda. Why are you making such a big deal about anyone else havng one while denying you have one.
If you really cared you would have made it a point to find out exactly who the owners were. I am a meat eater and a hunter and I would have done that.
I would like to make one post, which will be my final post in this discussion as the prior response posted this morning has obviously progressed to hostility.
Once again, it seems that people think that publically expressing my advocacy for animals would somehow incriminate me as a crazed activist. I take pride in my life long work for animals, including veganism and involvement in anti-hunting efforts. My animal advocacy was the driving force behind my choice to earn a license as a veterinary technician. The comments the prior person posted seem to be intended to insult or criticize, but instead I take pride in these aspects of my career.
In attempts again to discredit my observations working with foxhounds in Warrenton, this client of the vet practice made am umbrella statement that I never treated these dogs. Where they get their “facts” is puzzling. If this client has access to the entirety of my work history with foxhounds, this would be surprising.
I greatly respect the skill and compassion the veterinarian who was my prior employer. I was simply raising a query about credibility of statements that were made discounting cases of foxhounds I witnessed. No unethical conduct was accused.
I also have no problem if the licensing board reads any of my writing. I very clearly stated that if this were a LEGAL issue, medical records could be provided. Anyone with any veterinary or legal knowledge can attest that although medical records are not for public access, they are often required for evidence in legal cases. Obviously, this is not the case in our debate and therefore I would never demand records from the clinic.
The end point is that I will not stoop to a meaningless hostile debate with people who obviously have their own agenda against concerned citizens like myself with a professional and ethical obligation to prevent animal cruelty. I will continue to speak out at any cost when I feel there are animals suffering. In the long history of those who work for animal welfare, we have always been met with opposition by those attempting to maintain tradition and not rock the boat. There will continue, however, to be people like myself who will not be intimidated by insults and will continue to be a voice for the voiceless.
Thank you.
Allyson Kirk, LVT
Upon a more thorough reading of Ms. Kirk’s post I must say I am absolutely appalled.
Again, I am a client of that practice, and it was easy to figure out who she is referring to. I am disgusted that she is accusing her former employer of unethical conduct. My experience is that this vet is excellent. And again, I know for a fact she treats no working dogs.
Ms. Kirk never treated any working dogs at that practice.
In case you are wondering, I do not hunt with dogs and really don’t care that much about hunting.
However, I am an educated, intelligent individual and I work with local dog rescues and have done so for many years.
I can sniff out an agenda from a mile away.
Shame on you, Ms. Kirk.
I usually don’t comment on these pieces but the quote attributed to Ms. Kirk raised some red flags.
You see, I am a client of the veterinarian she worked for. I verified that Ms. Kirk has never treated any working dogs. All the vet’s clients are house pets.
The reason her quote raised red flags is because I have seen such language used before - in animal rights publications. These publications are usually full of misleading or downright false information.
Further digging revealed that Ms. Kirk is an animal rights activist and a vegan. Nothing wrong with that, of course, as she is entitled to her opinion.
However, she is NOT entitled to her own facts. And I think it reflects poorly on her, as an individual and a veterinary technician. I have taken note of her current employment and will be sure to avoid that practice. If she has “medical records” then I hope her licensing board does not read her post because her license could be revoked. Records belong to the veterinarian and are required by law to be kept private.
There is never an excuse to abuse or neglect an animal, and if any hunting dog owner is an animal abuser - I support putting that person in jail for a long time.
However, if you do not believe hunting is ethical - then do not engage in it. Ms. Kirk, and her father, apparently know nothing about hunting, hunting ethics, or wildlife management.
They do, however, appear to have an agenda. I don’t. I don’t belong to Warrenton Hunt. And I do work directly in animal welfare issues. Most hunting dog owners take excellent care of their dogs.
Animal rights activists are just trying to kill two birds with one stone. Persecute ethical houndsmen, and ban hunting at the same time.
Again, Ms. Kirk is entitled to her own opinion. I respect that. She is not entitled to her own facts.
I am writing in response to the flag comment posted by Mr. Alfred Griffin, Jr. regarding the “How I See It” commentary on Hunting Dogs. I was sadly not startled by the seemingly hyper-defensive rebuttal written by Mr. Griffin of the Warrenton Hunt. I would like, however, to defend my statements and testimony of the condition of animals I cared for as a veterinary technician in Warrenton. I purposely did not mention specific organizations’ names in my testimony as I do not know who the individual owners of the dogs were. I in no way specifically attacked the Warrenton Hunt’s dogs with my statements. I only commented on foxhounds I treated in Warrenton which we undoubtedly hunting dogs and undoubtedly in poor body condition and often wounded. My description of the dogs I cared for was 100% accurate and in no way “over-stating the facts.” I could provide medical records if this was a legal issue but it does not seem necessary at this point. If Mr. Griffin’s dogs are not kept in this poor condition, I applaud him and the caretakers of his dogs. It is also to be applauded if the Warrenton Hunt does in fact make donations to the SPCA every year, as these organizations painfully need contributions for the animals. What I do take offense to, however, is the double standard by which Mr. Griffin seems to hold my testimony as compared to his own or even the veterinarian he contacted as a reference. Why does my known opposition to sport hunting make the accuracy of my statements unreliable when Mr. Griffin’s loyalty and defense of his beloved sport of foxhunting does not make his own statements questionable? In addition, the veterinarian and owner of the veterinary clinic whom I worked for had public and recreational ties to the Warrenton Hunt while I was employed there. How deep does the vested interest of Mr. Griffin and the veterinary clinic (that will remain anonymous) in the Warrenton foxhunting tradition run? Enough to defend overt animal abuse to protect it? I believe so. Perhaps Mr. Griffin and the Warrenton foxhunters which he represents have their own political agenda to preserve their sport at any cost.
The bottom line is, when the foxhunting (or any sport hunting) tradition is brought in question, it is to be expected that its followers will defend it tooth and nail (pun intended). What must be remembered through the personal debates is that at the heart of foxhunting always lies animal abuse. Whether the poor condition of the hounds I have witnessed or the unwilling victim of the hunt, the foxes, the “sport” involves brutality with no purpose other than the selfish enjoyment of hunters. I have no problem making my stance against sport hunting public and this in no way changes what I have witnessed while treating neglected foxhounds.
Allyson Kirk, LVT
Advertisement