Sit. Heel. Whisper. Good Dog

Question: a. Identify what the authors conclusion is; and identify his reasons for concluding as he does. To answer this part correctly, you must be able to list out the differences between statements and non-statements to distinguish between the relevant and nonrelevant? b. Demonstrate and explain the strong and weak points of the authors argument.c. This part of the question requires you to do the following in a single response. State whether you agree or disagree with the authors conclusion? Answer: a. The author concludes that debarking a dog may not be an inhumane thing as many right activists proclaim. He takes the example of Nestle, a dachshund-terrier mix breed dog, owned by Dr. Mike Marder who himself is a practising veterinarian. Due to the many complains launched against Mr Marders dog for loud and noisy barking, he had no choice but to either debark Nestle or disown him. He chose the first as he felt the latter would be much more unethical. As the author searches for more information on debarking and its effects he is consistent with his view of debarking not being totally unjust towards dogs as it is now possible to do so without surgical procedures as well. b: The authors conclusion is based on evaluation of interviews with experts in the field of veterinary sciences, dog breeders and dog owners. He does an extensive study onto the way debarking is taken onto account by different people on terms of profession, activism and rights group. The author successfully puts in the comparative study of owners dilemma when he is forced to choose between disowning his pet and adhere to debarking which is a debatable procedure. The choice of debarking at this point seems just and apt. Also the author goes to explain the procedure of debarking, surgical and non surgical. For both the cases he uses the direct statements from the person concerned to support his conclusion. Although he succeeds in implicitly putting his conclusion with many strong points, his weak notes are also predominant throughout the passage. He chooses not to indulge much onto the reasons of right activists reasons for condemning such procedure. He fails to subdue the question of right to life of pets and their independency over their body. He also leaves the reason of banning of debarking in major hospitals around the US under a shadow of numerous questions. c: To agree to the authors conclusion will be unethical and also inhumane to some extent. Hence this conclusion of the author with regard to debarking must be strongly and unanimously disagreed upon. The first point that the author suggests towards his conclusion is the complains of the neighbours of loud barking noises and he goes on to support it with the number of complaints filed in one area on New York City. It cannot be a definitive view as it is understood that to keep a pet a proper facility and shelter must be provided. An individual cannot just abruptly make a decision of keeping a pet dog unless he or she does the reality check on the key issues. First the compatibility of keeping a dog in the neighbourhood he or she resides and secondly, whether or not this decision affects the neighbours adversely with respect to the natural behaviour of the dog. Hence the authors argument on the owners dilemma does not stand much ground. The procedure mentioned by the author may be pain less and as he mentions Mr Marders statement of no change in Nestles behaviourism it is inconclusive to reach to a conclusion that Nestle is actually unaffected by the sudden change of him from being able to bark to manage just a weak squeak(Arluke, Arnold and Randall Lockwood, 1997:7). It must be noted that animal behaviourists believe that any change in the natural habits of animals have an immense psychological effect on their life expectancy (Beirne, Piers. 2003:8). So even if Nestle may not show signs and symptoms of any adverse effect he may experience shorter life expectancy due to psychological strain. Lastly, the authors claim for the procedure of debarking being painless as it can be done without surgical methods do not suggests clearly whether or not this procedure is at a direct or indirect violation of the regulations of the city with regards to animals. American constitution revolves greatly around rights of individuals. It can be argued that most of the amendments in the constitution can be applicable to pet dogs as well. It may again be argued that by having a pet one is put at a direct responsibility to protecting its individuality, health, and life as it is. Hence the argument that an owner of a pet may very well have the same responsibilities as that of foster care parents do have a substantial weight. The rights group has for decades have provided examples and situations to express these arguments. Finally the authors subdued take on the professional view of established veterinary hospitals makes the conclusive theory as given into a cloud of doubts. References 1. Koch, P. 1964: Wood machining processes. New York: The Ronald Press Co.2. Krilov, A., 1980. Debarking of Eucalypts a re-appraisal ,Vol. 43(4),pp-1451493. Williston, E. M., 1976. Lumber manufacturing: The design and operation of sawmills and planer mills. San Francisco: Miller Freeman Publications Inc.4. Arluke, Arnold and Randall Lockwood, 1997. Guest Editors Introduction: Understanding Cruelty to Animals. Society Animals, Vol.5 (3).5. Ascione, Frank R., 2001. Animal Abuse and Youth Violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin6. Beirne, Piers. 2003. From Animal Abuse to Interhuman Violence: A Critical Review of the Progression Thesis. Society Animals, Vol.12 (1).