Brock Afentul (2can.tv) Hypocrisy and Questionable Husbandry

Welcome all, to the saga of 2can.tv, a Youtube channel, Instagram, Facebook page, and Discord maintained by a dude named Brock Afentful, owner of a fluctuating number of pet toucans. Before we get started, I wanted to list some of my other posts about this situation, as it would really be to your benefit to take the time to go through all of it. I urge you to keep an open mind however. 

If you "read" my material and upon finishing, are still asking yourself just why the heck do I have a problem with Brock, or why I would stand in the way of him "rescuing" toucans, you certainly have not read my content with an open, impartial mind. If you are of the belief that Brock is infallible and that absolutely nothing I say will change your mind, you're wasting your time sending me hate mail and death threats.

Brock on Reddit

The Death of Maeve

Buying Non-rescued Birds

Brock's Fake Toucan Rescue

Last year I described an apparent mental failing I termed The Parrot Paradox. In short, this is people's tendency to see a pet that is uncommon and unusually owned and perceive that animal as difficult to care for (or jump to the conclusion that it doesn't belong in captivity) often without even knowing anything about that animal. This is a consistent occurrence with parrots (common) vs. toucans (uncommon) and the belief that the latter requires specialized care or should only be in zoos, even when parrots are considered to be high-maintenance pets [5].

To expand upon this cognitive bias, I would like to introduce you to the "Three Can'ts" (because they all say you can't care for a toucan properly, so to speak). These are three individuals who post a lot of online content about their pet toucans, therefore, their information is favored by Google and Youtube algorithms. All three have the following in common: They've owned toucans as pets, they all believe toucans shouldn't be pets, and they are all relatively young, have no education in the sciences, and had their first toucan(s) for 6 years and under before giving them up or having them prematurely die (generally longevity in captivity is 21 years [25]).

They are Brock Afentful of 2CAN TV, Jamieleigh Womach of Bird Tricks, and Chrissann Nickel of the blog Adventures in Toucanland.

I will discuss the other two in more detail in future posts, but while Womach and Nickel impulsively purchased their toucans, Brock may be the least qualified to be making public statements on the suitability of toucans as pets for many reasons.

To start, this is the video that inspired this post:

In this video, Afentful makes some comments that show an appalling lack of self-awareness and obvious hypocrisy which is evident from the title alone (Tiger King, Exploiting Animals for Fame, & Why Toucans Shouldn't be Bets!(Rant).

He also says: "I don't believe toucans, or any exotic animals, should be pets. But they are here to stay and we can't change that now. The best thing we can do is make sure they get to qualified people or facilities that give them the best lives possible." and on another video "I do NOT recommend or endorse Toucan's as pets."

These comments sound insane, considering that Afentful:

• Spent $10,000 to $12,000 on his first toucan, Ripely, from a breeder.  
• When Ripely passed, he got his followers to help him buy a new one (and send the original's body to an unspecified museum), for a similar price.
• He also got his followers to help pay for 2 more toucans soon after, under the guise that they were being "rescued". 
• He (obviously) puts up content that makes owning toucans look appealing (because they are), for revenue. 
• He literately says that his channel is responsible for 75% of his income and asks his followers to help pay for his new house ("we're trying to move to a new facility" from the video "Toucans Bite and it is Not Fun").

Therefore, Brock Afentful is, by every definition, exploiting his birds, as they help pay his bills, and yes, his earnings also pay for the care of the birds, which is also to his benefit, because they are his desired, extremely expensive, luxury pets. One only needs to glance beneath the "rant" video in question, where he is ironically begging for donations and selling products depicting his pets.

Brock Afentful Questionable Husbandry

Why is Afentful asking for donations? The fact remains, either he can afford the care of his birds that he asked his supporters to help him buy and simply would rather have someone else do it, or he can't afford their care yet "rescued" two toucans after he spent what would be more than a month's income for much of America's population on the first toucan.

Furthermore, his house is filled with what appears to be expensive mainstream film memorabilia, including this model of a Jurassic Park T-rex that retails for over $500 in the U.S. at the time of its release.

This is important, as Afentful presents his channel as an educational resource and perhaps even a toucan "rescue". It should be noted that there are real bird rescues that utilize their limited resources to help as many lower value birds as possible, while Afentful is collecting money for three valuable (even if they are sick) animals that he owns completely for pleasure (his words: “I can’t imagine living my life without a toucan”) when he supposedly thinks that is wrong. He even claims that he does this "for a living".

 

Small Cages?

Ironically, by the standards of most toucan keepers, Brock Afentful's enclosures are way too small for large toucans, including one of the most well-known breeders, Emerald Forest, and even they don't believe toucans shouldn't be pets. Most owners of large toucans believe they should ideally be housed in walk-in avaries. Here are cage specifications from three resources:

Emerald Forest: 12 feet by 24 feet by 8 feet [4]
AZA:  2 feet wide by 6 feet long by 6 feet high (this is only a quarantine cage for short periods) [17]
Summers, Amando: "Large Toucans need the largest Macaw-size cage you can find, or better, walk-in aviaries" [21].

This was Ripley, his first toucan's cage, this is Toupac's cage, and this is the cage for the 2 new birds he "rescued" (at 14:00), which appears to be the same model (or is it the same cage?) of Toupac's double macaw-sized cage (possibly 80"x40"x61" interior), but split in half to accommodate the two birds (it is unclear if this housing situation is permanent, and if it is, this is a very stressful situation as the two birds do not get along and have no means of hiding from each other's view).
However, he claims 2 of the birds are rarely in the cage.

But there's a few problems with this.

• Toucans defecate, on average I would say, every 5-10 minutes, constantly, all day. As they do not have a crop like parrots [4][6], they eat throughout all their waking hours and poop on a consistent basis [1][22]. They can even sometimes eliminate food they've eaten 15 minutes ago [6]. This means that if he is telling the truth, then even with daily frequent cleaning, his house is filthy and gross and possibly infested with fruit flies/ants/other bugs [22], especially since he lives in the South (personal experience owning a toucan). That is simply not sanitary.
• He is forcing his toucans to sleep outside of their preferred sleeping quarters, a nesting cavity [16][17][22][25], none of which are present inside or out of the cages.
• It is completely unsafe to allow toucans to free-roam the house without constant supervision, and I mean constant. Simply being 'around' or within the same space isn't enough. They can injure themselves, and far more commonly, ingest small objects and die [4][11][22]. His house appears to be a normal house, not an emptied-out specially designed-for-birds living space. 
• His house contains a small number of perches and perch-able surfaces. While it might sound appealing that the birds get to "free roam", they naturally prefer to spend little time on the ground [17]. This means the space that is available to them, besides the floor, is not so large. 
• It is recommended that the larger toucans are kept outdoors with natural sunlight for optimal health [17]. 
• If Afentful wants us to believe these toucans are so well-behaved that they remain still on certain perches and are perfectly content, he has successfully made the argument that they are excellent pets. Otherwise, this housing situation is not adequate.
• Furthermore, if he doesn't believe in caging the birds for long periods, it begs the question, why did he raise money to buy two more "rescue" toucans that may or may not get along with his first toucan within the household or properly adjust to this precarious free-roaming situation that he is dependent on? As he states he "tries to give them as much of a cage-free life as they can possibly have", he sounds like he feels entitled to have the birds even though he does not have the proper enclosure(s) and requires them to be extremely tame and well-behaved (in direct contradiction to them being "bad pets") in order to live well in his home. Furthermore, he claims Beatrix cannot be out as often due to "behavior issues", but these "issues" (aggression, territoriality, flying into walls, ect.) are in fact NORMAL and EXPECTED toucan behaviors [4][15][16] (especially when they are parent-raised [1]) .
• Afentful could have pursued buying or "rescuing" less expensive aracaries or toucanets that are the appropriate size for his situation, as I did, but he choose to purchase large toucans for his own desires. 

This was Beatrix's quarantine area with papers that were "just changed", to give some perspective on the amount that toucans eliminate. Image used under Fair Use.

 

Feeding Toucans Junk for Views

None of Brock Afentful's followers seem to make anything of the fact that he at least once has fed all of his toucans fried chick-fil-a nuggets and Froot Loops. He does this possibly to amuse people, not for "education" and certainly not for the benefit of the birds. While Afentful often states to his followers that toucans like to eat meat, they rarely do this except when raising chicks [3][13][14][20][22][24][25].

The diet should be as low in iron as possible [4][7][10][11][22]. Animal protein is high in iron [18] and toucan owners know to avoid meat entirely if they aren't breeding [7][8][10][19][22][24]. However, the Chick-fil-a nuggets are not just meat, but fried and cooked with various spices of unknown suitability for birds. Foot loops are extremely high in sugar, even for humans. Feeding these foods one time (if it was only one time) might not be harmful, but why take the risk with delicate animals like toucans just to get views? This is not only "exploitation", but potentially harmful exploitation.

Furthermore, Afentful's first toucan was fed cooked turkey shortly before her death at 6 years old. Her cause of death was cryptically described as "heart failure" or a "dormant heart issue", which he tries to imply was a genetic issue. Toucans are prone to cardivascular problems, and one cause is a high-fat diet and obesity [2].

Lying about Toucans being Injurious

Part of Afentful's spiel about toucans making bad pets involved him making a click bait thumbnail about toucans biting and inserting fake blood splatter on top of the image. He seems to rather enjoy presenting toucans as 'raptor-like' perhaps to make himself feel like a daring animal wrangler.

Actually, toucans may have the least injurious bite of any comparably-sized warm-blooded animal that you can possibly own. Their beaks are very lightweight [23]. After prompting his toucan who has "behavior problems" to bite him, he sustained a superficial red spot on his finger, which proves this. Parrots, on the other hand, can break your fingers [9], but I haven't heard him suggest parrots are bad pets. This is just another great example of the aforementioned paradox. Not many pet owners would induce a bite from an animal that could cause significant harm. If I prompted some of the animals I own to bite me, I would easily end up in the hospital.

 

Toucan Behavioral Issues?

Afentful suggests Beatrix, the keel-billed toucan, has "behavior problems" and is "not pet quality" despite the fact that she is an adult bird in a new environment being forcibly housed closely to other strange toucans of different species, which is not recommended [4]. I believe her behavior is completely normal and expected, which only further proves my point: Afentful seems to have expectations of birds behaving like tame dogs and when they do not, he considers them to be bad pets. This is entirely the root of exotic pet criticism, i.e. comparison syndrome. People who have incorrect perceptions of animals will label them incorrectly. The fact that his other "rescue" toucan is behaving so well (even before his supposed ample time working with them) is great evidence they make excellent pets for the right owners.

The Bottom Line

Brock Afentful frequently states throughout his Youtube channel that he doesn't believe toucans (and other exotic animals) should be pets while he purchases the birds, actively supporting the trade and making money from showing them of. Therefore they are not rescues, they are assets. While suggesting that only a limited number of people, himself included, have what it takes to care for toucans, his husbandry is questionable and does not follow the recommendations of leading toucan breeders. Afentful appears to make up his own rules regarding not just toucan care, but who is qualified to own them and nonsensical logic that permits him to "rescue" and even purchase toucans while simultaneously siding with animal rights activists so that he can get praised by pro and anti-exotic pet minded supporters, reaping every benefit.

*If any of the information presented here is factually incorrect, please let me know with sources provided.

References

1. Axelson, Rick. Toucans and Toucanettes - General. Care & Wellness, Pet Services. 2009.
2. Cubas, Zalmir S. "Toucans: Husbandry and Medicine World Small Animal Veterinary Association World Congress Proceedings, 2009." Hemoglobin (g/dL) 16: 14-61.
3. dos Santos, Alessandra Aparecida, and José Ragusa-Netto. "Toco-toucan (Ramphastos toco) feeding habits at an urban area in Central Brazil." Ornitología Neotropical 24 (2013): 1-13.
4. Emerald Forest Bird Gardens. Care Information.
5. Engebretson, M. "The welfare and suitability of parrots as companion animals: a review." ANIMAL WELFARE-POTTERS BAR THEN WHEATHAMPSTEAD- 15.3 (2006): 263.
6. Hess, Laurie. Axelson, Rick. "Toucans and Toucanettes - Feeding". Care & Wellness, Nutrition, Pet Services
7. Jennings, Jerry. Toucans & Their Captive Reproduction.
8. Johnson, Sibylle. Natural and Captive Diet of Toucans / Toucanets and Aracaris.
9. King, I. C. C., H. Freeman, and J. E. Wokes. "Managing parrot bite injuries to the hand: not just another animal bite." Hand 10.1 (2015): 128-130.
10. Mazuri. Mazuri® ZuLiFe® Soft-Bill Diet for Iron Sensitive Birds.
11. Máinez, Mireia, et al. "Traumatic (foreign body) pericarditis in a Toco Toucan (Ramphastos Toco)." Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 47.4 (2016): 1097-1100.
12. Otten, Benjamin A., et al. "Mineral content of food items commonly ingested by keel-billed toucans (Ramphastos sulfuratus)." Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 15.3 (2001): 194-196.
13. Ragusa-Netto, José. "Abundance and frugivory of the toco toucan (Ramphastos toco) in a gallery forest in Brazil's Southern Pantanal." Brazilian Journal of Biology 66.1A (2006): 133-142.
14. Ragusa-Netto, José. "Toco toucan feeding ecology and local abundance in a habitat mosaic in the Brazilian cerrado." Ornitologia Neotropical 19 (2008): 345-359.
15. Reynolds M. 2017. Toco Toucan: species fact sheet. Silver Spring (MD): Avian Scientific Advisory Group. [accessed 2020 April 16th]. http://aviansag.org/Fact_Sheets/Piciformes/Toco_Toucan.pdf.
16. Ritchie, Branson W., Greg J. Harrison, and Linda R. Harrison. Avian medicine: principles and application. HBD International, Incorporated, 1994.
17. Seibels, B., and M. Vince. "Toucan Husbandry Manual for the AZA Piciformes TAG." Association of Zoos and Aquariums (2001).
18. Sheppard, Christine, and Ellen Dierenfeld. "Iron storage disease in birds: speculation on etiology and implications for captive husbandry." Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 16.3 (2002): 192-197.
19. Silva, Juliana Macedo Magnino, et al. "Development of young toco toucas fed with dry dog food and toucan pellets." Revista Brasileira de Saude e Producao Animal 12.3 (2011): 739-749.
20. Silva, Paulo Antonio. "FLOWER EATING BY THE TOCO TOUCAN (RAMPHASTOS TOCO) IN AN ANTHROPOGENIC LANDSCAPE DURING THE DRY SEASON." Ornitología Neotropical 30 (2019): 51-55.
21. Summers, Amado. Toucan Frequently Asked Questions. Summerbirds.com
22. Toucans... My Experiences with their Care and Breeding
23. Worell, Amy B. "Ramphastids." Handbook of Avian Medicine. WB Saunders, 2009. 335-349.
24. Verschoor, T. "Talking Toucans” ZooQuaria 90 (2015): 16-17.
25. Vincent, Mairee. "The Preliminary Studies of Wild Toco Toucans (Ramphastos toco)-a keeper's experience in the field." Ratel 34.3 (2007): 8.

Adrienne Kruzer (Spruce Pets) Copies People's Articles

Adrienne Kruzer RVT, LVT, who is currently a "Senior Veterinary Product Technical Specialist" in Lancaster, South Carolina, who writes for the Spruce Pets and various other websites, claims to be an expert in "domestic and exotic animal care", however it is apparent that she just re-writes other people's articles, including some of my own, to create a large quantity of inferior content solely for revenue.

Here is an example of a section from an article that is almost entirely taken from one of my well-researched articles on pet foxes:

Adrienne Kruzer: The arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) is very similar to the red fox but is typically smaller and not as commonly kept as a pet. An animal that has adapted to life in the Arctic, it is sensitive to hot temperatures and may overheat easier than other foxes. Measures to keep it cool may be necessary. Due to a small breeding stock in the U.S., Arctic foxes are overbred and some possess genetic problems.
 Like red foxes, its urine and scenting glands make it a smelly choice for a pet. It is not well suited to life indoors since it scent marks its territory. It also loves to play in sand and dirt and may make their litter box more of a pleasure sandbox than a bathroom spot. As far as foxes go, it can have a pleasant disposition.

From my article (which includes references):  Availability: Regular availability but less common and more expensive than red foxes.

Size: 28 inches long without the tail, and 6 to 10 pounds [2].

Relative Care Level: As the name might suggest, this species can be sensitive to hot temperatures and overheat. Measures must be taken to keep them cool in unsuitable climates. Being a 'true fox', special smelly scent glands can make them poor indoor pets, although other owners report that they have no smell [24]. Due to a small breeding stock in the U.S., arctic foxes are over-bred and some possess genetic problems [13].

Arctic foxes can have a pleasant temperament (for a fox), some learn to use their litter box 'most' of the time, and they have very smelly urine. They love to play in sand or dirt and they may mark their territory with urine or feces [10].
Cost: $200-700 for captive-bred animal.

Not only is this frustrating for writers like myself, who spend a lot of time scouring scholarly sources, pet owner forums, and using our long term interest in the subjects that we write about to aid in the development of unique online articles that provide quality material for readers, but this is also important considering Kruzer is one of many online writers with "expertise" that spread misinformation about exotic pets, claiming they make "bad pets" based on their obvious ignorance.

For instance, here is Kruzer's article on why owls make bad pets. It is clear that she has inadequately researched this topic as the information provided is extremely shallow. When describing the enclosure an owl needs, she describes it as a "substantial aviary setting" that must be made out of "sturdy wire". This is just generic information from someone who's done the most minimal amount of Googling. Here is one of my articles about pet owls with much more specific information on owl housing:

"Owls and other birds of prey are kept in what’s called a mew. These are essentially completely enclosed, large, outdoor, wooden enclosures. The sides should be composed of slats that allow in some light and air but are not too far spaced apart as to cause discomfort to the animal and potentially be accessible to outdoor animals."

It is clear that she doesn't even own exotic pets except for "two rescued leopard geckos" and her experience likely involves having been in the same room with exotic animals occasionally as a vet tech, if her content is any indication. Her lack of "expertise" is apparent to anyone who is passionate about exotic pets in captivity. Kruzer's Linkedin describes her writing:

I contacted Kruzer privately on Facebook about this issue in a respectful manner weeks ago and was just immediately blocked. I also contacted the "multi-award winning website", The Spruce, twice and was completely ignored.  This website, which was launched by About.com, claims they have the best experts in their topics and are conflict-free:

"The Spruce brand is one of the top 10 largest lifestyle properties online according to comScore, a leading Internet measurement company. Our 45+ expert writers, including professional contractors, landscapers, chefs, cookbook authors, registered vet technicians, and well known crafting bloggers, have extensive backgrounds and expertise in their topics."
  
"Our Writers

All of our writers were carefully chosen for their extensive experience in their subject areas."

"At The Spruce, we take great pride in the quality of our content. Our writers create original, accurate, engaging content that is free of ethical concerns or conflicts. If you ever come across an article that you think needs to be improved, please reach out by emailing contact@thespruce.com."

This illustrates why it is so important to ignore content farms like The Spruce Pets and authors like Adrienne Kruzer who have the gall to tell people an animal makes a bad pet or shouldn't be a pet when they are not properly educated on the topic and are mostly writing such to gain traffic and revenue.

Executive George Latimer Bans Circuses Because He Doesn't Like Them

"circus" by fsse8info is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

 Yesterday, February 29th, in the county that I grew up in, something pretty pathetic but sadly typical took place. According to this report, Westchester County 'took a stand against animal cruelty' by banning so-called wild animal performances.

 Animal cruelty? That's bad, of course. Why would I be against banning that?
 
Well, I have these crazy thoughts that perhaps there should be evidence of something occurring before it qualifies as something that should be prohibited from the public, and banning something simply because you don't like it is a form of tyranny. In fact, there are many vegans who would likely argue that the the meat industry is vastly more 'cruel' than anything taking place in a circus, yet presumably, and perhaps hopefully, a ban on animal products wouldn't take place.

However, thanks to these two child-minded individuals, County Parks Commissioner Kathy O’Connor and Westchester County Executive George Latimer, all wild animal performances are banned in the county with nary a bit of evidence to support it.

 According to the report, these officials offered the following compelling reasons to enact the ban that mainly targets the Hanneford Circus which performed at the County Center recently:

 “They all go up on pedestals and they, one-by-one, come down,”

—Kathy O’Connor.

  “To subject those animals to whatever efforts are needed to control them in this kind of environment, for them to perform is not worth the entertainment value that people get from it”

—George Latimer
 
Hmm, so the tigers go up on pedastals—but WAIT, and then they come down too. Furthermore, Latimer's extensive investigation of this circus has yielded such specific information that includes some effort is needed to control the tigers and whatever that is, it's not worth it. 

I mean, Latimer, don't you care what it is? Don't these humans whose living you are harming deserve at least a modicum of consideration? Why should your useless emotional opinion that the methods used to train the animals (the methods that you have no idea what the hell they are) are not worth it deserve more consideration? Do these officials need to be reminded that they are not 'kings' or 'supreme leaders'?

I myself also have no idea if these tigers are being whipped behind these scenes or if their handlers are using highly effective and completely harmless (actually, it is beneficial and enriching for captive animals) operant conditioning training methods, therefore I have no opinion on this circus. There are also potentially other circuses and exhibitors that used trained animals that will be automatically denied by Westchester County for no apparent reason. 

How is this right? How can these officials just decide for everyone else that they don't need to see performing animals and just ban them because they don't like it? I have no idea why when it comes to exotic animals, legislators often just regulate people however they feel like it, their rights be damned, as though exotic pet owners and handlers should feel lucky they ever had their rights to begin with.

Hillcrest Veterinary Hospital (South Africa) is a Disgrace

Here's a shining example of how mindless anthropomorphism negatively affects not only animals, but victimizes people too. In 2018, a cat owner named Jessi Dietrich tweeted a response from her vet after she asked him what the hardest of his job was. He replied "when he has to put an animal down, 90 percent of owners don’t actually want to be in the room when he injects them. So the animal’s last moments are usually them frantically looking around for their owners."

After the tweet went viral,  South Africa-based Hillcrest Veterinary Hospital & 24hr Emergency Service shared a comment with the description "This was written by a vet and is so true". The vet in question, who has labelled many dog owners as cowards, ironically will not reveal their name, but might quite possibly work at Hillcrest as they are the source of this pathetic tantrum:

Furthermore, within the comment section, a representative of their Facebook page stated:

"Unfortunately the vets do not have a say. This is probably why it is so heartbreaking. The owner of the pet has all the legal rights and say as to what happens."

The "vet" who wrote this, those who work at the practice who endorse it, and anyone else who agrees with this are disgraceful for several reasons.

First, while people who become vets presumably do so because they are passionate about working with animals, veterinarian-hopefuls quickly learn that interacting with humans and providing them comfort in difficult times is also part of their profession. However, this South African vet has very much utterly done the opposite. This vet has thrown salt in the wounds of grieving pet owners who cannot emotionally handle watching their pet die, and even worse, owners who didn't even have a choice.

While the goal of this "vet" was to shame owners who would rather not stay for the emotionally devastating process, they have inadvertently sentenced those of us whose animals died on the table before and during medical procedures who wish we could have been there to suffer even further, taking into consideration their horrific description of our pets searching for us in fear and misery.

As we weren't even there, we often picture the worse and imagine that our dogs knew what was coming and felt abandoned by us. Even myself, someone who knows better, cannot escape these self-criticisms, and as a result, ridiculously, I often feel regret and shame for attempting to save my dog's life for an additional $7,000 after complications from her $10,000+ cancer treatment. The vet wasn't talking about me, but the result was the same. My dog passed without me and I wasn't there with her because I tried to save her instead of put her down.

That being said, who the hell is this vet to viciously judge and hurt owners who can't stay? I can't imagine a more despicable act of emotional treachery than a so-called professional actually writing, in all CAPS like a baby, "THEY SEARCH FOR YOU WHEN YOU LEAVE THEM BEHIND!", but that's not all, to actually call their clients cowards makes me pray that it was a lie that a vet wrote this. Perhaps it was their naive 13 year old daughter. Regardless, the clinic has publicly endorsed it and that is unacceptable.

While the animals in question are at peace and no longer suffering, this so-called vet has decided to create extra misery for the owners who have to live with their perception of their pet's last moments. Even more gross is that the person who runs their Facebook page has the audacity to express discontent that the owner has the final say on how they carry out this torturous process and that they can't force the owner to do things their way. HOW HORRIBLE that the owner gets to choose!

But is this awful vet's thoughts even valid? I have little doubt that dogs who are physically able search for their owners when the owner leaves the room. I can guarantee that dogs who are attached to their owners search for them when they are left behind for any other non-medical procedure too. Dogs probably search for their owners when they are left behind for grooming, kenneling during your vacations, and even when you leave for work! Most dogs, being social animals, do not like being left alone in general.

I would like to ask this vet exactly what the heck is the difference between leaving my dog to get her teeth cleaned and being euthanized? My dog doesn't know when or if I'm coming back and both procedures involve inducing a lack of consciousness without the owner present. I recall while standing in the examination room at the vet, a dog wailing and crying in the back thinking it must have woken up from the most brutal and painful surgery. The vet told us he had woken up from getting his teeth cleaned (he was a little nauseous).

Dogs go through this 'trauma' on a regular basis.

More importantly, do you think you're doing your dog any favors when you bawl your eyes out in front of them? If they are already scared, I'm sure this reaffirmation from their normally calm and collected owners will solidify their terror. In fact, this is one way I know that me staying with my dog may have done more harm than good, as not crying hysterically is not an option for me. I would love to be able to comfort my pets confidently during euthanasia just as I would when they are nervous going in for a dental exam, but I just can't. Crying is involuntary. My presence would let my dog know something really horrible was going down.

The animal charity Blue Cross states in regards to euthanasia:

"This is entirely your choice. It may be a comfort to you to see that euthanasia is usually a quick and gentle process, but try not to feel guilty if you feel unable to watch – if you are very upset then this may upset your dog."

Some owners may not want to amplify the distress in the room, so it is rather nervy for someone to think they should be making decisions for you and your pet when you know them best. 

I don't know why this shit from these bullying vets went viral. Perhaps it is a sign of the times. Dogs are privileged in our society to receive such compassionate care and a quick and painless end to their suffering, however a "vet" can essentially accuse owners of being callous towards their pet anyway, and it will get shared and lauded by other dog snobs in our animal rights obsessed climate.

Rampant anthropomorphism and projection of a human's feelings that are often irrelevant to the animal often just leads to misery on both ends. Dying must be a pretty unpleasant process no matter what the owner does, so the key is to just get it done quickly and not dwell on the quality of the 'last few moments'. What really matters is the quality of your dog's life with you. Euthanasia should result in a dog's rapid escape from its hurting body, so people need to leave their owners who are still stranded here the hell alone.

Responding to Angry Service Dog Owners

Due to a recent coincidental real-life experience with a service dog owner and an encounter with service dog owners on a Facebook group (which I was added to many years ago) the following day, I’ve decided to document the following. While probably (or hopefully) most service dog handlers are perfectly nice and reasonable people, some particularly angry and hateful individuals congregate on various Facebook groups and other forms of social media to express their disdain for “rude” people who bother them in public. 

What is the appalling, rude, behavior that has some service dog handlers throwing their hands up?

No exaggeration: People pointing and saying “look, a dog!”

On the page The TRUTH About Service Dogs, this was described as the behavior of an asshole, and several members discussed real life instances where they mocked, insulted, and embarrassed the ‘offenders’. While these individuals often believe that dog pointers are “butt hurt”, “entitled” and overly sensitive, I was called an asshole, banned and had my comments removed for the following replies:

I think I stated an obvious and irrefutable fact (that they apparently couldn't rebut, so opted to silence and denigrate me instead); There are many animals that we see every day that would surprise and grab immediate interest if we saw them inside a building or up close (someone actually said they see squirrels less often than service dog handlers...where??). Actually, probably every animal except the smallest insects would do so. 

Furthermore, as I replied, the people these handlers 'shut up' by mocking them weren't realizing how rude their actions were, they were probably taken aback by how someone could respond so nastily to such an innocent action. 

I recall an instance where my dog had inadvertently used the bathroom on the edge of someone's lawn. As I was preparing to bag up the waste, a woman rushed out the door and said "I hope you PLAN on picking that up!". I was completely speechless and wondered if they were just playing around and joking. Ever since that incident, I had always wished that my shock (and social anxiety) didn't stop me from responding to their rudeness properly. I am also a person who, when I have a bad day and lash out at an innocent person, feel like shit about it later. The comments in this group, however, celebrate their belief that they've humiliated someone in public. It begs the question, do these individuals have a moral conscious? This is how they justify such behavior:

So apparently, someone pointing at and commenting on the presence of a dog makes its handler feel like a second class citizen and a sideshow act. I can't say that when people notice my non-service dog that I've ever felt even close to this. I would go as far to say that some people think they are being nice by addressing your dog, as regular dog owners often enjoy the attention. There are many who may not even realize the animal is a service dog, nor would they have understanding that the handlers receive these comments too often.

 As someone who had a friend who is a dog lover and one of the nicest people you could meet dismissed by a handler the previous day, I can assure all handlers that being rude is lights years from their intentions. Some people just really like dogs; they will even notice a particular cute dog in a pet store where they are surrounded by dogs, while walking their own dog. I can't imagine being so myopic as to not be able to understand this. Service dog handlers want people to understand their plight and subsequently change their behavior, so perhaps disrespecting non-handlers isn't the best way to accomplish that, as respect is not a one way street.