CONSULTING
Daniel Antolec explains why he has chosen to commit to a force-free philosophy in his dealings with animals in the light of his background in law enforcement
recently enjoyed a thought-provoking conversation with a respected colleague on the subject of force-free professional dog training and my former career as a police officer. I think her expectation was that, given my background in law enforcement, I might be inclined to use forceful methods, such as those commonly associated with so-called “dominance theory.” In fact, when my colleague asked why I became a force-free trainer I did not truly comprehend the question until later. Then it dawned on me. We are all exposed to popular media such as television and movies in which police are almost always represented as tough and violent. I grew up watching programs like Starsky and Hutch in which extended violent shootouts were a weekly event, and the leading characters never showed any consequence of having killed a few more of the bad guys. I was introduced to Dirty Harry on the big screen. He was an anti-hero, a tough cop who broke the rules and even tortured a suspect to elicit information, all in order to kill a few more of the bad guys. The reality of growing up during the 1960s and 1970s exposed me to news reports of police abusing and beating labor union leaders, American Indian Movement members and civil rights marchers. The turmoil of the Vietnam War era brought urban violence into our living rooms and police were directly involved. Recent graphic video reports of police shootings across the United States have prompted protests and federal probes into police violence and abuse of civil rights. In light of As a former police all that, I now officer, Antolec finds that people understand often expect him why someto use forceful methods in dog one would training ask me why I became a force-free professional dog trainer. The answer lies in my early education and a code of ethics taught to me by my mentor, Eldon Mueller. Mueller was
54
BARKS from the Guild/May 2016
Author Daniel Antolec does not use fear, intimidation or inflict pain on dogs during the training process “because it is neither reasonable nor necessary to do so.”
© Can Stock Photo Inc./ksuksa
I
Walking the Force-Free Path
my instructor in constitutional and criminal law. He was a grandfatherly figure who always wore a three-piece suit and a friendly smile, beginning each class with a joke or two. To look at him one would not have known that he was a retired FBI agent and author of the federal legislation that is still used today to dismantle organized crime syndicates. The first thing Mueller taught me was the role of police in a free society: To protect lives and property, enforce state laws and local ordinances, and to defend and uphold the Bill of Rights and Constitution. I still hear his voice. It has always been with me. Mueller asked us to memorize and recite the Bill of Rights, but he did not require it. I think he was delighted that I did so, but he may have been saddened that I was the only one of his students to follow that path. He spoke extensively about ethics and that became my moral compass. Whenever I faced a tough decision, I always asked myself what Mueller would approve of. When teaching about use of force, Mueller admonished us to follow the Supreme Court standard of only using the level of force that was both reasonable and necessary, due to an imminent threat. Police were never justified in punishing anyone, under any circumstance. That was the role of the judicial system alone. During my police career I filled many roles including patrol sergeant and a certified instructor. I taught tactical subjects including Defensive and Arrest Tactics, the use of force system mandated by law in Wisconsin. Within my own department I wrote the policies and procedures regulating use of force with