Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Controversy around the movie A Dog's Purpose
#3
I am actually quite shocked that the 100% welfare of the dogs was not upheld during the making of this movie. I know someone who had dogs once who starred in movies/adverts etc, some years ago. She told me that the "health and safety" rules were so tight that often the director would get frustrated with how long it was taking to shoot something! There was at least one vet always on stand-by, and who would shout that the dogs needed rest/water etc, even when it was clear to her that they were fine. (She knew her dogs well!)

So for anything like this to happen does sound unusual....

However, if a dog is unused to water or swimming, it is a very bad idea to just throw them in. I also know someone else who did that with their dog, and said she was fine after the initial shock.
But I have a different experience. Misty liked water only to a certain pont and was very scared when she started to feel her legs lift. I knew she'd probably be able to swim instinctively, but never put that to the test as she was obviously scared of it.

One day we were all playing by the river. She used to like running along the bank, to get a stick out of Jet's jaws (which he had swum out to retrieve) She fell in a deep part of the water. I saw her swim. I also saw the sheer terror on her face. I leaned out and hauled her up the bank.

She ran off the adrenalin, playing frisbee, and she dried off okay. I made sure she did that, and she seemed fine. But for two days afterwards she was unwell. I am sure the shock of that sudden plunge into the river really upset her whole system.

So no, I don't think a water-scared dog should just be thrown in.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Controversy around the movie A Dog's Purpose - by Tobi - 01-21-2017, 05:35 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Created by Zyggy's Web Design