What is there to be gained…

What is there to be gained by approving this proposal? Are there no possible alternatives to training the dogs than this option? This practice has been in the process of phasing out for 25 years and there are still over 20 centers that use it. What critical need is there that this practice must be expanded? What has changed in the last 25 years that other training options are no longer viable and this is the best solution?

When considering any action that involves significant harm to animals or wildlife, the most important question that should be asked are - what are the possible alternatives to this? This proposal has not asked this question. Why are less harmful alternatives not being considered? The decision to phase out this practice was already supported by the harmful effects on wildlife outweighing the benefits in training for the dogs.

I believe that this proposal has not been carefully considered and does a disservice to the ministry's decision, scientific research, and public input from 25 years ago. Choosing to progress this proposal without addressing these real concerns will show that our government is more interested in following through with plans than ensuring that they are moral, ethical, and the best possible option. I urge the decision makers to take this comment into serious consideration and reflect on why this proposal is being pursued. Thank you.