Friday, December 30, 2011

Mechanical Tricks make Fowl Actors Perform Modern Mechanix 1932

There used to be such a real and genuine interest in animal training. People were actually in awe of what and how it was done(for the most part, natural behavior is exploited). Then a funny thing happened, all the people of the world became experts themselves(or so they like to think) and the animal right's movement took off. Folks like the nit wit Frank Buck and concerned trophy hunters of today are portrayed as "Hitleresk type madmen bent on the annihilation of all species" which is as insane as the movement has become. Hitler had an intent, and the Frank Bucks of the world didn't. They just didn't realize at the time what their actions were causing. Now hunting is regulated, licenses are required, and it is monitored for negative affect and adjusted.

You tube and the internet is filled with a potload of "training sessions" conducted by wild animal trainers, staged "kool-aid" that appeals to only the choir they are preaching too and their various fans. I have seen a few "training sessions" and been involved in a few more. Those are the one's that need to be video taped and explained, not justified, but explained. Folks would probably understand better then, and many being animal owner's themselves, concur. All that is available today are the "aren't I great, and the rest suck" self promotion clips.

There is a current movement underway to "qualify" animal trainers with number of hours of learning and with whom. What a great step forward, to no longer be "qualified" just because you own the animals, or your family did before you. But in a strange twist of fate, there is nothing in the works to "qualify" the "qualifiers". The animal activists have "self appointed" themselves in much the same way the people they now say aren't "qualified" used to do!!!!!! What's up with that? Who "qualifies" a pilot? As far as I know, a pilot who has been "qualified." Same deal with doctors or any other profession. They are signed off by someone more "qualified" then themselves. Shouldn't sanctuary operators be held to the same standard of "qualification" as a Zoo Director/Zoo Curator? Bob Barker deciding what is right because he has the money to "purchase" the animal, is no different then an animal professional deciding what is right because he has the money to "purchase" the same animal. If animal professionals need to be "qualified", who/what "qualifies" Barker, a sanctuary owner, a city counsel, or a Congress?

No comments: