Wow seriously? I'm reported for this nonsense? I said I take the meat off the bone 99% of the time. And that 1% being there genuinely being nothing to eat. And I even trust that 1% even now and then because the dog eats them properly. This is treated like I'm willingly trying to kill a dog. If it did. I would; break them before giving them to the dog, give it to the dog regularly. Both of which I don't do. That means, even if my dog has shown competency with eating them, I still don't do it hardly at all. Blowing this up like some intentional dog killer is insane. This has nothing to do with me trying to cause controversy lol. Anyway I'll stop doing it if people care that much. If it's too late and y'all wanna pull ban hammer instead, my reaction is; nvm I'll chill
The meat part of the chicken was never the bit of consequence, it was always the bone.
The conversation went:
Raven: Chicken bones are good, I see why dogs eat 'em.
Username: That's actually unhealthy for the dog and has a significant chance of causing them harm.
R: No, if you chew them a lot they aren't dangerous.
U: They are dangerous no matter what. Don't feed them to dogs.
R: I feel this is an exaggerated threat that happens much more rarely than is suggested.
U: It isn't exaggeration. This is extremely dangerous to your dog. Stop.
R: It isn't significantly more dangerous than anything else, etc etc
U: It is more significantly dangerous, here's sources that explain that. (This carries on about several tangents, you'll have to forgive my paraphrasing of the content of these messages)
R: You didn't show me anything new, so drop it.
U: Well no, I did, I showed evidence of what I was saying that showed you are wrong, it is a major danger to your dog that you're taking unnecessarily.
R: "I didn't ask for evidence."
And right about here is where the report was filed. This exchange is the damaging bit, and the final messages are in particular what leads me to agree to action being taken. Had it been a situation where one would listen to the other and recognize that their actions are actively and noticeably increasing the risk of death to an animal, then I would say no harm, no foul. But this is either willfully ignoring these risks, or intentionally picking a fight. Username had an extremely measured and reasonable attempt to show these dangers to you, which you ignored and even seemed to get aggressive against.
I do not propose we create an animal wellness committee for VS Battles to see how well each user takes care of their pets, but when a user intentionally talks about their treatment of their pets, and their reckless treatment of the pet's life, that is a cause for concern. It should not be done. Now that the information is here, action can be taken. And given your refusal to oblige initially, one does not feel confident in any statement of compliance later.
The claim isn't that you are intentionally killing your dog. The claim is that you stubbornly refuse to dodge an easily dodgeable obstacle to your dog's life, hoping instead that each time they will simply tank it. This is knowledgeable ill treatment of an animal and is punishable as animal abuse in many locations. Whether you want your dog dead or not is irrelevant.
Now, to acknowledge something:
I just want to clear something up: Feeding chicken bones isn’t inherently animal abuse. In fact, they are regularly given raw to medium/large dogs in raw diets. It’s cooked bones that can’t be fed to dogs, since they can splinter, and potentially cause punctures in their guts.
Now, I don’t know if Raven is being reported/banned for other reasons, and I’m definitely NOT saying you SHOULD feed your dogs raw chicken bones (ask your vet) but I feel it’s important to emphasize that it’s not inherently animal abuse. I feel this information is relevant to the report anyways.
I'm not sure this is relevant,
as Raven seemed to pivot to raw chicken bones some way into the original discussion. At other times, she has seemed to imply that she would simply feed the dog the bones of her own eaten chickens which has obvious implications on her health that make the raw chicken theory decidedly unlikely. But, this latter bit is not certain, either, and she now seems to dispute it.
With all of the above said and out of the way. We are interpreting much, and we lack the means to verify our information. In light of this, these interpretations must be taken with a healthy dosage of grains of salt. I will rescind my support for a permanent ban on these grounds: if the allegations were more concrete, I would support it. Still, the refusal to give suggestions on the health of her dog any time of day, when she appeared by all accounts to be in the wrong, and not offering any explanation
then, does strike me the wrong way, as does the now-deleted rant.
Under any interpretation, Raven's actions are inflammatory. I dislike this, and it comes after many instances of inflammatory behavior in the past. I would support a ban, although not a permanent one. Agnaa has currently proposed "a few months"- given that she is under duress, I may shoot lower than this, suggesting a month or two instead, but I would not be vehemently opposed, either.
