November 06 Commentary Now Available
Have you ever noticed how, when you join a new profession or develop a new interest, it’s a lot like getting into a relationship with a new person? At first, all we see and all we want to see are the good things about the other. But as the relationship matures, some want to know more than just the all-positive edited version. Those of us who do this aren’t looking for reasons to love the other less, but rather seeking to add depth and meaning that will enable us to love and understand that person, profession, or interest even more. Rather than being in love with an illusion, we want to be in love with a reality.
Because of this, periodically I write a commentary that explores those aspects of human-companion animal relationships or companion-animal behavior to increase my readers’ appreciation of the depth of these subjects. This month’s explores the darker side of the use of animals for therapy, a use about which an abundance of head-over-heels-in-love all-positive literature exists.
It a way it’s funny, or maybe it’s sad (I can’t make up my mind!) that even though I know that we can’t say anything meaningful about any subject in the behavioral/bond field until we explore its full spectrum, I’ve been conditioned to feel like a spoilsport when I do. But to me being superficially in love with an animal-related endeavor, be in the use of animals in therapy or a particular people-pleasing training technique, isn’t a sport in which the naive or inexperienced merely break bats or deflate balls that can be easily replaced. When we adopt an all-positive view that precludes objective analysis of the full spectrum of possible results, we risk harming human and animal alike.
To read commentary, click here.