Why?

[doggietrio]

There are more "bad dogs" because folks no longer know how to train a dog. How many of you have seen folks come out for a "herding instinct test" and the dog drags the owner out of the car, barking non-stop, walking on its hind legs, to see the "sheepies"?

 

We (societal we) have changed our mindset from dogs are "just dogs" to dogs are furry family members and should be treated like kings and queens. Folks that keep dogs in kennels, instead of in the house, are "mean". Certainly, a dog shouldn't live outside. People buy king sized beds so their dogs can sleep in the bed with them.

 

We think it's cruel if a working dog can't herd on the ranch is taken behind the barn and shot. And, we think it's horrible that someone would rehome a dog if it couldn't do the job you got it for, as you would never rehome a family member, right?

 

Dogs used to be livestock. If they didn't earn their keep, they were removed. If a dog did bad dog behaviors, - bit someone, or was a general unpredictable freak, the dog was euthanized. But, now, it almost seems to be a badge of honor to train a dog "with issues" and help it recover.

 

We spend how many hundreds/thousands of dollars on "super premium" kibble for our dogs. We spend how many thousands of dollars to train and trial our dogs - even if we're not ranchers and live in the city to prove they can herd stock, or weave, or run over jumps to get a ball or insert sport here.

 

We have videos available on how to condition our dogs - I mean, seriously, how many of us have dogs that are 1) in better condition than we are, 2) eat healthier than we do, and 3) get better medical care than we do? Why do you think that is?

 

I believe that dogs are filling some deep psychological need for people. They are no longer "just dogs" but a tool for people to feel better about themselves or more connected to the world, or something. This change in our attitude towards dogs leads us to treat them differently than we used to 30 years ago. Some say that's great because dogs have a better quality of living now, I actually wonder if it's much worse.

 

Sorry, ramblings on a cold, rainy (yeah!) morning.

 

Jennifer

[Root Beer]

I believe that dogs are filling some deep psychological need for people. They are no longer "just dogs" but a tool for people to feel better about themselves or more connected to the world, or something. This change in our attitude towards dogs leads us to treat them differently than we used to 30 years ago. Some say that's great because dogs have a better quality of living now, I actually wonder if it's much worse.

 

I agree with the first line of this paragraph, but my personal conclusions are a bit different.

 

I think that for many of us, dogs are filling a need in our lives.

 

Now, I don't see this necessarily as a means of feeling better about ourselves so much, but the idea that dogs make us feel more connected to the world really rings true to me.

 

We live in a highly depersonalized society. Many of us don't know our neighbors and don't want to. Many of us, working in office jobs, commuting, and spending so much time on our cell phones and computers, are largely disconnected from the natural world on a day to day basis.

 

I find that owning dogs does put me in touch with nature. And I find that sharing my home with them - including my food and my furniture - does help me feel more connected to the world. And they don't just share my home and life, I share theirs. At least when the weather is halfway decent, I make it a priority to go outdoors with them and I do gain something - although I can't explain what - by sharing my time outdoors with them instead of being out there alone. It brings me a lot of peace.

 

My dogs remind me to play, to take time and just bask in the sun, and to experience life - at least a little - from their point of view. They are, in a sense, a connection to the world that I find myself largely estranged from as a working professional.

 

And honestly, I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Ninso]

There are more "bad dogs" because folks no longer know how to train a dog.

 

This is the only line in doggie trio's post that I can see as being at all related to the subject matter of this thread. And I think I'll leave the rest of it alone.

 

Signed, Tania (who needs to see a shrink for her psychological issues) and Jun (the neurotic, crazy, OCD, (SPAYED), deaf border collie who doesn't (and can't, obviously) herd sheep, lives in the house and eats "super premium" kibble, and yes, makes me laugh and smile every day. I guess I shouldn't have rescued her from her owner who was going to shoot her, as apparently that is what should happen to a dog like this, 'cause she's contributing to the population of "bad dogs" in the world)

[Root Beer]

This is the only line in doggie trio's post that I can see as being at all related to the subject matter of this thread. And I think I'll leave the rest of it alone.

 

Guess I was off topic, too.

 

I do that sometimes even though I know better. It's because I was trained by a positive trainer so I have no idea how to behave properly.

 

ETA:

[jdarling]

Excellent post, Jennifer! I hope people will spend more time discussing the issues than taking the post personally.

 

But, now, it almost seems to be a badge of honor to train a dog "with issues" and help it recover.

 

Or THIS.

 

Jodi

[Ninso]

Productive discussion:

 

I find this statement:

There are more "bad dogs" because folks no longer know how to train a dog. How many of you have seen folks come out for a "herding instinct test" and the dog drags the owner out of the car, barking non-stop, walking on its hind legs, to see the "sheepies"?

 

and this statement:

We spend how many thousands of dollars to train and trial our dogs - even if we're not ranchers and live in the city to prove they can herd stock, or weave, or run over jumps to get a ball or insert sport here.

 

to be 100% contradictory? Do you want us to train our dogs? Or do you just think that those of us who don't have livestock and don't treat our dogs like livestock have absolutely no business owning them?

 

What is the point? Is the point that people who don't train their dogs are contributing to the population of bad/neurotic/phobic/what have you dogs? That is a completely reasonable position. But the rest of the post seems to be a direct slam at pet owners--not the ones who DON'T train their dogs but the ones who DO. And at rescuers, who take the dogs that got screwed up by the people who don't train and bother to put a little time into them to turn them into good pets (you know, instead of taking them out back and shooting them).

 

I take it personally, because it is directed at me--pet owner/rescuer.

[Root Beer]

But, now, it almost seems to be a badge of honor to train a dog "with issues" and help it recover

 

Excellent post, Jennifer! I hope people will spend more time discussing the issues than taking the post personally.

 

Jodi

 

I haven't taken anything personally, so if you were referring to my quip above (which realized ex post facto I had left out the proper emoticons to convey my tone), please rest assured that's not the case at all!!

 

And trust me, I wasn't raised by a positive trainer at all, nooooooo way!

 

Anyway, the problem that I see with throwing a label on folks who rehabilitate dogs "with issues" is that one size simply does not fit all.

 

The idea of shooting my pet Border Collie because he is afriad of thunderstorms, for instance, is ridiculously absurd. (Nothing taken personally, it's just a nice clear example) So, where is the line? How "far gone" would a dog need to be before you, or anyone, would deem a certain issue inappropriate to attempt to work on?

 

Now one issue (pun!) I take with Jennifer's statement above is the assumption that those who help dogs with issues recover do so for some kind of recognition or status. Seriously - there is no way for me, or you, or anyone to know individual's motivations for choosing to work with a dog instead of shooting it.

 

I don't do it as a "badge of honor" and therefore, such an assertion does not seem logical to me.

[alligande]

I spent sometime reading through all the posts and just wanted to add a couple of observations.

 

I have posted about problems I have had with my rescue, it is the reason I joined the board so I could benefit from others experience. He is not my first BC or rescue but he is my first with boards like this one (it was still AOL and no WWW yet) and so rather than make mistakes and make things worse (speaking from experience here) it is great to have input from others who have dealt with similar problems. So I am sure that many of the posts are people just reaching out rather than muddling along like you would have done pre forums.

 

I do love my dogs and like most of us they eat premium dog food, get extensive vet care, lots and lots of exercise and yes occasionally sleep on our bed, but they are still dogs. In another internet forum I was taken to task for being selfish because I wanted my BC to fit into our lifestyle rather than adapt our lifestyle to the dogs "special" needs (in fact he was just being a brat).

[doggietrio]

Ninso...they're not contradictory...in fact they are one and the same.

 

Training a dog isn't about how many tricks a dog does or games it plays. Training a dog is about how it lives with you, fits into your community, and, quite simply, behaves.

 

Alligande stated it much clearer than I did...

..I wanted my BC to fit into our lifestyle rather than adapt our lifestyle to the dogs "special" needs..

 

I've seen too many people who are adapting to fit their dog. I wonder if that's what is creating the "bad dogs" and leading to all the "out of control" / "bad dog" posts?

 

Jennifer Akins

Trowbridge, CA

[SoloRiver]

I think Jennifer's absolutely right. Her explanation doesn't account for the entire phenomenon, but it is true that owners are more likely to try to fix problems these days that would have meant a death sentence for the dog in the past. At the same time, there are far more and better tools to do this than there were in the past.

 

I don't think this is a bad thing, if it means that everyone's quality of life is improved. I can tell you I've benefitted immensely from knowing and loving Solo, and I think he would say the same about me, if he thought that way (which I don't think he does). I don't look at him as a "badge of honor," except perhaps in a limited sense: when I got him and realized the extent of his problems, I did initially want to pass him on, partly because I didn't think I was qualified to take care of him and partly because I didn't want the hassle. But I realized I could not live with myself if I was just the last person to let him down, so I decided to try and fix him. He no longer appears to have all that many problems, and he is the canine love of my life, so I think I made the right decision for him and for me. I don't really care how other people see it.

 

People tend to have one of three reactions to my and Solo's story. Some people really do think I'm a hero for taking him on and sticking with him. People who have actually had dogs like him just nod knowingly (regardless of what they themselves decided to do with their own problem dog). And a pretty significant number of people react with disgust. They usually say something like, "I can't believe you wasted so many resources on a bad dog when there are so many good ones dying for lack of homes." Which to me is a totally non-sensical statement (whatever dog I choose to install in my home is my business and no one else's) but the point is that it is not necessarily a "badge of honor" to have a problem dog. There are an awful lot of people out there who think you are a fool, or even that you have somehow committed a crime against dogdom by not summarily euthanizing said dog and immediately going out and getting a "good" one.

 

It is true that dogs are more likely to be considered family members and valued as individuals now than they were in the past. I agree with Jennifer that in many ways this is not good for dogs, but in other ways, it is. I'm not sorry that I have a wacky dog. He means the world to me and I love him for who he is, which to me has everything to do with his true personality and nothing to do with his psychoses. Meaning: I'd love him just as much if he was perfectly normal. He isn't a "badge." He's just Solo.

[ItsADogsLyfe]

It is true that dogs are more likely to be considered family members and valued as individuals now than they were in the past.

 

So would these same people, which is quite a few, that believe this, toss out one of their human family members that is hard to deal with? I feel if you love the dog and its yours, who is to say you should put it down?

[bsms99]

...They usually say something like, "I can't believe you wasted so many resources on a bad dog when there are so many good ones dying for lack of homes." Which to me is a totally non-sensical statement (whatever dog I choose to install in my home is my business and no one else's) but the point is that it is not necessarily a "badge of honor" to have a problem dog...

 

On a recent, now deleted thread, I argued that folks on this board didn't have the right to tell someone how to breed non-Border Collies. Many took that to mean I was saying they had no right to an opinion. They had, of course, a 'right' to their opinion, but that wasn't my point. They lacked the moral authority to expect their opinion to carry much weight with their intended listener. Anyone can have an opinion on the best fate for Solo, but I question their expectation that Melanie should listen to them. Not all opinions benefit from airing...

 

As for Jennifer - she has a website:

http://www.jentodogs.com/about.html

 

I doubt she has any animosity towards rescue or working with problem dogs. I think her ire is directed at those who do so poorly - those who breed without being serious about the characteristics they pass on, or who take a challenging dog and THEN use it as a badge of honor instead of doing the work to care for the dog. There was a thread a while back about a woman who had a 'problem dog' who attacked other dogs repeatedly, then complained because the government took him away from her - even tho she let him out without a muzzle. Or the Katz fellow, complaining about his dog but unwilling to build a kennel for him. There are plenty of owners running around who spoil their dogs, and at the same time don't allow them to be dogs. People who take their dogs 'herding', but don't provide them boundaries within the house. People who own their dogs for their sake, not the dog's. I hesitate to put words in her mouth, but that is my interpretation of her post & website.

[Root Beer]

. . . and at the same time don't allow them to be dogs.

 

Could someone provide a precise definition of this idea, please?

 

In what way, specifically, do you feel that dogs who live in the house, eat high quality food, share the household furniture, receive regular training (general, sport, work, whatever), do conditioning and other regular exercise, etc. are not "allowed to be dogs"?

 

What aspects of "dog-ness" are these dogs missing out on?

 

And in what ways would these specific deprivations of dog-ness lead to behavior problems for which euthanasia is a better course of action than rehab/training/behavior modification?

 

bsms99, I'm not necessarily asking you specifically. I just pulled this idea out of your post because it was most handy for quoting!

[Ooky]

We (societal we) have changed our mindset from dogs are "just dogs" to dogs are furry family members and should be treated like kings and queens. Folks that keep dogs in kennels, instead of in the house, are "mean". Certainly, a dog shouldn't live outside. People buy king sized beds so their dogs can sleep in the bed with them.

 

Jennifer, I found your post very interesting. I thought about it a lot (and have considered this or similar issues more than once after joining this board). I'm not taking offence, even though I seem to be one of the people you are directly talking about, having just posted that I showed my dog some "sheepies" recently (I also talk to him about squirrel-squirrels and "jokies" - my name for racoons). You would, I fear, regard me with even more distaste if you knew that the term "sheepie" comes from the name we use for his stuffed sheep toy. He does not have any emotional/psychological issues that I am aware of, but we did just treat him for extremely expensive OCD of the shoulder rather than letting him continue to go more and more lame until we had to shoot him. I have no desire to keep him in an outside kennel for any reason, am happy when he gets on the bed with us, and feed him premium kibble. He does not help me with chores or work and when I take lessons with him it will be for our mutual fun and education, since we live a very urban environment and won't have livestock any time soon, if ever.

 

Things definitely are different for him than they were for any of the dogs my family had growing up, from dogs in the 50s when my parents were growing up, and from dogs in the largely agrarian societies pre-modern times. However, I don't buy your argument (if it actually is your argument, I could be misreading) that just because things have changed, the dogs can't handle it and are starting to go insane en masse. How dogs have been used and treated by humans has 1) changed drastically over time (more than once) and 2) has always been hugely different between cultures. While I can see certain things being harder for them living in a modern city compared to out on a farm or back in the golden age (whenever that was), I see some things being much better. I don't know why improved healthcare (and potentially medication for real psychological issues), inside sheltering conditions, better nutrition than slops or Ol' Roy, and toys and trick-training would cause a dog to have issues. BUT, even though it's not the way I would do it, I also don't think having a dog in a kennel in a reasonable climate or treating them more like employees than family would drive a lot of dogs insane either.

 

Either one of those groups has more than enough owners who do not do right in the way of training their dogs to just live and behave in the world, as you kind of said in your later post. There might be more pet fanatics out there now than dog stockmen (or whatever labels you would give these two largely artificial groupings), so less animal-savvy knowledge in general. I know I've had to seek it out throughout my life since I don't come from a farm; through my career and love of being out on the land, friends and relatives with farms, and hopefully one day I'll have my own farm. But if I don't, and if I always let my dogs and cats sleep in my (yes I have one) king size bed, I don't think I'm going to be a significant contributor to the "messed up dog pool" out there FOR that reason, you know? I think with continued artificial selection and a coevolutionary relationship with humans, and the right "nurture" (and mainly human companionship), they could follow us into space. I'm not advocating Sputnik training, I'm just saying we are changing, and unlike a lot of wild animals who do not interact well with humans, dogs will change with us if any species can.

 

Anyway, after all my rambling, I had to go and find a quote of Luisa's that this post reminded me of. In my mind, at least, it applies to your characterization of us "spoilers". I think she said it so much better (and concisely) than I could:

 

 

Loving your dog doesn't mean you think it's a child. Providing it with excellent medical care doesn't mean you think it's a child. Spoiling it to death doesn't mean you think it's a child. Dressing it up and carrying it around doesn't mean you think it's a child. Calling it a "furbaby" and referring to yourself as its "mom" doesn't mean you think it's a child, and none of this means that dogs are literally "child substitutes." (Darn. And here I thought my collies would go to Stanford and support me in my old age )

 

There's a nasty, sexist undercurrent to this bit of pop psychology [frequently called "maternal displacement" by those writers who prefer some pseudoscience with their sexism], and for all-out intellectual laziness it's hard to beat. Dogs are living creatures that share our lives --- they're not little humans, but they aren't refrigerators, either. It's a complex, varied and fascinating relationship, worth studying. But does anyone really think Scout is "a little man in a dog suit"? Please.

[bsms99]

...In what way, specifically, do you feel that dogs who live in the house, eat high quality food, share the household furniture, receive regular training (general, sport, work, whatever), do conditioning and other regular exercise, etc. are not "allowed to be dogs"?...bsms99, I'm not necessarily asking you specifically. I just pulled this idea out of your post because it was most handy for quoting!

Here's how I use the phrase:

 

My dog has no desire to fight other dogs. Off leash, he'll run away. In the house, he's cautious but assumes friendly. On a leash, he assumes a threat unless proven safe. When I was a kid, that was considered normal dog behavior - why should a dog have to like everyone he meets?

 

However, dogs also thrive on direction/rules. People who tolerate Fido jumping on visitors aren't providing the direction and control that makes a dog feel safe.

 

I let my dog sniff from a leash when we are in the desert. Some say I shouldn't, but he's a dog! He wants to smell stuff. If I order him to heel, OK...otherwise, he can sniff while I wait.

 

I EXPECT a Border Collie to be a bit stand-offish. I have an Aussie who is a social butterfly, but I resent people who think a dog has to kiss every human he meets. I consider restraint to be a sign of good sense in a dog, not something to train away.

 

Furniture is an individual choice. I grew up with dogs sleeping in the bed, but I don't allow it. The only thing is that the dog needs to understand the rules, and you need to have SOME rules for the average dog to feel comfortable. Obviously, I think "...live in the house, eat high quality food, share the household furniture, receive regular training (general, sport, work, whatever), do conditioning and other regular exercise" is still letting a dog be a dog, provided the dog has enough restrictions of some sort that he knows he isn't the boss and that he needs some level of respect for other humans. Dogs are meant to interact with humans. They just aren't supposed to be the boss.

 

I would also point out that I sometimes sing to Black Jack the Pirate Pup, which he enjoys - but when I tell him NO, he pays attention immediately. As do all the dogs, except Dan when he is off leash and running away...

 

Examples of the opposite: a dog without an 'off switch' - train him, darn it! A dog who is aggressive towards people. Breeding dogs emotionally, rather than thoughtful consideration. Making excuses for a dog that chases livestock. Getting mad at a dog who defends himself (appropriately) against harsh treatment - that isn't aggression, that is good sense. Taking food away from a hungry dog in a shelter, and killing him for 'aggression' if he snaps.

[mbc1963]

I have a challenging dog. I've posted about him enough that I don't need to get into his history again.

 

I brought him home from the shelter after signing a contract stating that I was responsible for working on whatever problems he might have: that the shelter wasn't making any promises that he was a perfect dog, and that I understood he would need training. I promised that if I couldn't handle him, I'd bring him back to the shelter.

 

So, I got the dog home, and within hours he started showing intense reactivity toward people and dogs and pretty much any sound outside. I worried for a couple weeks that I couldn't take on this project. That I should bring the dog back to the shelter. Then: Training, desensitization, reading reading reading, work work work, and now, almost 4 years later, the dog looks fairly normal. He's a great pet dog: never chews, damages, pees, poops... listens to me, has an off switch, yadda yadda.

 

No one told me this was a difficult dog when I brought him home. But I had made a promise, and signed my name to it, and I took that very seriously. Could I have given a home to an easier dog, and sent this one back to be euthanized? Sure. Would that improve the universe somehow? I don't think so. This isn't an ungood dog - he's just a dog who needed a particular environment to thrive.

 

I don't wear my work with Buddy as a badge of honor. I am happy that I was able to change a life for the better, but that's just a situation I stumbled into because I picked this dog at the shelter. I am happy to share advice with other people who might find themselves in the same situation, because that's what being human is all about. I'm certainly not embarrassed or ashamed that I chose to spend the last four years with this dog, rather than a more "suitable" dog.

 

Mary

[Root Beer]

My dog has no desire to fight other dogs. Off leash, he'll run away. In the house, he's cautious but assumes friendly. On a leash, he assumes a threat unless proven safe. When I was a kid, that was considered normal dog behavior - why should a dog have to like everyone he meets?

 

Some dogs do like everyone they meet. Out of my four, three of them truly enjoy meeting new people. For those three, enjoying meeting people is part of "being a dog".

 

However, dogs also thrive on direction/rules. People who tolerate Fido jumping on visitors aren't providing the direction and control that makes a dog feel safe.

 

This is an interesting one. There was an article in Smithsonian a while back about the wild dogs in Africa. These are wild dogs, not wolves. One thing that struck me from this article, that has always stayed with me, is that when one of the wild dogs leaves the pack and then returns, the dogs engage in elaborate greeting rituals when the dog returns to the pack.

 

Hmmmmmmm . . .

 

We get ourselves into such a tizzy because our dogs jump on us (or others) when we return home. Could it be that this behavior is actually far more "doggy" than docile, controlled behavior when someone returns home?

 

Since I read that, I actually started to encourage my dog's greetings when I return home, or my husband does. The fact that I allow it is my rule and my structure. The dogs understand it - in fact, it is quite natural to them.

 

Because visitors don't always like being jumped on, they know an off cue and I will use it with people who prefer not to participate in such greetings. That is also part of my rules and my structure. The dogs understand it. We greet and then they run to the door to be let out to potty.

 

Now, I'm not saying that all dogs should be allowed to jump on people willy nilly. And, of course, when you get into the question of gigantic dogs, there is a safety factor.

 

But to say that people who allow their dogs to jump up are not providing control and direction can be quite false, as I have illustrated above. It really is important to look at the big picture.

 

I let my dog sniff from a leash when we are in the desert. Some say I shouldn't, but he's a dog! He wants to smell stuff. If I order him to heel, OK...otherwise, he can sniff while I wait.

 

Why shouldn't you? Of course they want to smell stuff. I've found as a sport person that if I allow my dogs to sniff when they are "at ease", they are far more inclined to engage with me when it is time to work with me instead of sniff.

 

I EXPECT a Border Collie to be a bit stand-offish. I have an Aussie who is a social butterfly, but I resent people who think a dog has to kiss every human he meets. I consider restraint to be a sign of good sense in a dog, not something to train away.

 

I don't differ on this. Of course, I have one Border Collie who is a social butterfly. I certainly don't expect him to be stand-offish simply because he's a Border Collie - but I doubt that's what you mean.

 

Knowing several Border Collies who are, or used to be, reactive to strangers, I do want to point out that there is quite a distinction between helping a dog learn to accept the presence of strangers and trying to teach the dog to "love" everyone.

 

There is some measure of need in human society to teach a dog to mind his p's and q's around people that he does not like (unless they are breaking into the house or something).

 

But, I definitely agree - there is no need for a dog to love people, as long as he can behave appropriately around them.

 

I grew up with dogs sleeping in the bed, but I don't allow it. The only thing is that the dog needs to understand the rules, and you need to have SOME rules for the average dog to feel comfortable.

 

True. Of course the rules can vary from individual to individual. I gather that many of my rules are atypical, but I think it would surprise many to know that I do have quite a few rules and my dogs understand them and follow them and feel quite safe (except Dean when it's thunderstorming, but we're working on that). Well, at least as well as any living being follows rules - they aren't robots, of course!!

[bsms99]

"We get ourselves into such a tizzy because our dogs jump on us (or others) when we return home. Could it be that this behavior is actually far more "doggy" than docile, controlled behavior when someone returns home?"

 

I think so, at least for family members. Dogs don't greet everyone that way, just other pack members. That is part of letting a dog be a dog. I don't allow much jumping, but will kneel down and take a minute to pet everyone, tell them how much I've missed them, etc. This is a part of our morning ritual - let them out to potty, then let them in and we all exchange greetings. I've read some who say it is wrong, but that is why I think we have some neurotic dogs - we expect them to act like humans, instead of us translating ourselves for dogs. When I was growing up, I never heard of anyone thinking their dog shouldn't greet them when coming home.

 

"Of course they want to smell stuff. I've found as a sport person that if I allow my dogs to sniff when they are "at ease", they are far more inclined to engage with me when it is time to work with me instead of sniff."

 

Agreed. But I've read books that say you shouldn't. Ceasar Milan's book was borrowed, but I believe he says you shouldn't allow dogs to sniff until you are in the hunting area, or some such thing. I will sometimes PRACTICE a heel for a hundred yards or so, for training, and reward them when done - but walk thru the desert and not allow them to sniff? That would put a lot of stress on a dog, and treats him as though he's a human. I may JOG them on a leash and expect them to keep going, but walk and not sniff? They are dogs, for goodness sakes.

 

"I gather that many of my rules are atypical, but I think it would surprise many to know that I do have quite a few rules and my dogs understand them and follow them and feel quite safe (except Dean when it's thunderstorming, but we're working on that). Well, at least as well as any living being follows rules - they aren't robots, of course!!"

 

I'd only add that you obviously try to understand your dogs, and make rules that bring them into your life. As a horse trainer I know commented once about a part draft horse trotting, "Sometimes you have to love them for what they are, not for what they can never be." When you try to make a dog be something he just doesn't have it in him to be, you get a neurotic dog. Or horse, or kid...

[Shetlander]

Excellent post, Jennifer! I hope people will spend more time discussing the issues than taking the post personally.

 

Well, maybe I'd find it easier to discuss Jennifer's points if her line of reasoning was clearer to me. The post seems to lash out at giving dogs excellent diets, allowing them on furniture and training them to do tricks or sports. I find that puzzling as those things aren't the sum of what most of us do with our dogs. I don't live on a farm. I still want to own dogs and I don't plan on treating them like livestock. Keeping them in an outside kennel would be substandard care in my opinion because I personally would not be able to give them the companionship and attention they deserve. There is more than one way to live with dogs. It doesn't mean one way is necessarily superior to another.

 

Training my dogs to do more than behave around the house (which is of course always my primary goal) is my option. If I choose to keep a dog who is less than perfect ("bad," "worthless," "trash"), give him excellent food and vet care, allow him in my house, train/manage him so he behaves appropriately, and even go on to train him to do tricks or sports, that is again my option. It's my dog, my time, and my disposable income so long as my dog is not being mistreated and is not creating a problem for anyone. Ok, let me clarify, as long as my dog is not creating a problem other than my care of him being philosophically offensive to some people.

 

There are more "bad dogs" because folks no longer know how to train a dog

.

 

From what I remember, lots and lots of people didn't have a clue how to train a dog 20, 30, 40 years ago either. The difference today, is some of those clueless trainers now have the opportunity to take badly trained dogs to places like dog parks and compete in sports with them. Frankly, I think there are more badly trained, poorly behaved dogs living half lives tied out in backyards or made to stay in the basement rather than in with their families than there are going to "herding instinct tests" or dog trials.

[Debbie Meier]

I read Jennifer's post and thought "Yes, Yes", not because it's lashing out at anyone or trying to point fingers, but trying to identify what has changed. What is different now then what used to be. People are changing and the dogs are evolving, evolution causes change beit good or bad. People are changing the way they handle dogs, the dogs are causing people to change, beit good or bad. Understanding which changes are occuring due to the dogs changing allows us to understand if breeding choices are going wrong. Understanding which changes are occuring because the dogs are changing us allows us to understand if current training methods are working to maximize the abilities of the dog. Would you rather understand what is effecting the change or what is attributing to the problem, it's part of acknowledgement, if we acknowledge and recognize it we can work to figure out how to reduce the problem.

 

I think some of the problem dogs are due to breeding gone bad, old culling methods are no longer consider politically correct so dogs are remaining in the gene pool or just in society when old culling practices would have removed them, people have changed people. But I also think a portion of problem dogs are due to poor training and upbringing, people tend to not want to cause conflict or discomfort (it does not have to be physical, it can be mental, just by placing requirements and expectations on a dog or person). Once a dog figures that out they are going to put expections on us, who's training who? In many cases the problem dogs are being the trainer and the owners are wanting to rebel or realizing that their dogs are abusing them.

 

In many cases the reason for so many problem dogs is that it just more acceptable to have a dog in places where once it was unacceptable, more people have dogs. Heck, growing up, dog's weren't allowed in the house, they made their own bed out in the barn. They ate what we threw them, their job was not to be a family member but to be something to be responsible for and care for. Livestock that was lower maintenance so that the kids could learn a sense of responsibility and to learn stockmenship and training skills, and they doubled as security or warning system. I'm not saying that that life was easy, or that dogs are better off now, it's just different. And each of us sees it differently based on how we were brought up.

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

Some random and not-so-random thoughts on this subject, in no particular order:

 

And each of us sees it differently based on how we were brought up.

I'd guess that's a pretty true statement. My parents, were they still alive, would be in their 80s now. I am in my mid-40s (this is all just for a time perspective since it seems that at least some people think dogs were treated much different "back then"). My parents grew up during the Depression. My mom had lots of "pets" that were destined for the dinner table, and she also had dogs. As far as I can remember, the family dogs were allowed in my grandparents' house.

 

When I was growing up, dogs, cats, etc., were a part of our family and lived in the house alongside us. They had dog beds (gasp!) and were not relegated to the outdoors or the barn, nor were they just thrown scraps. They were fed what was considered at that time to be decent dog food. They got regular vet care and health care that might have been considered "above the norm." For example, when the fox terrier pup was run over by a horse and her leg was badly injured, she wasn't taken out back and shot; she was taken to the vet, the leg was amputated, and the dog came home to live out her life with us.

 

Our dogs were not "livestock" 1.0, kept to teach us responsibility. We had livestock, too--horses, goats, chickens, and ducks--and those were our (the children's) responsibility. My mom basically had control over dog and cat care. Mom was an animal lover, and although I doubt anyone else in her family was quite the same (she was the youngest of 9), she certainly wasn't discouraged by her family from being the way she was. And of course, she brought us up to believe in the same standard of care that she had for animals, be they dogs and cats or regular livestock.

 

So I agree with Deb that how we see animals is largely based in how we grew up. Where I disagree (and it wasn't just Deb implying this) is with the notion that "back when" all dogs were treated differently. I am quite sure that the way I care for my animals now is a direct result of my own upbringing and the standards of care my parents had for our animals. And I'm pretty sure that my mother's standards just didn't come out of the blue--she learned them somewhere too. So in my case, there were at least three generations of animal care standards that were pretty darn high.

 

It was said earlier in this thread and has been repeated more recently that it's (the perception of more dogs with issues) a combination of factors. Back when I was a child, there weren't all sorts of places where you could reach out and ask questions about issues (training or otherwise), so most folks just muddled through. That doesn't mean that muddling through should be what people do today. Today there are a ton more resources, and I think it's good that people reach out and ask questions and want to try to do right by their animals. It doesn't make them morons or somehow inferior to the folks who did have to muddle through and figure it out on their own; in fact, it shows a measure of intelligence that some people are willing to admit they can't handle a particular issue or situation and so seek help.

 

I do agree that there is a lot of bad breeding and overbreeding that contributes to the problem of dogs with issues (i.e., poorly bred can = temperament issues), but I disagree that people who have dogs with issues somehow think that dealing with those dogs makes them special. Most people who have dogs with issues simply don't believe in giving up at the first sign of difficulty, and frankly I consider that personality trait one I'd want in my friends (you know, the folks who should be watching your back).

 

I also agree with the comments that some of the apparent rise in badly behaved dogs is directly related to more people taking their dogs out in public before ever teaching them basic manners. If your mannerless dog never left home, then the only people it would bother might be the neighbors. Start taking the same dog out and about and suddenly all those behavior problems become someone else's problem too. I do think that society as a whole has become more permissive when it comes to setting rules and expecting them to be obeyed, and this applies to both children and pets. I'm not saying we need to go back to the "good ol' days" of corporal punishment, but if we as the ones with the big brains are unwilling or unable to set boundaries and enforce them then we are going to end up with mannerless children and mannerless pets, and other people aren't going to want to be around either one.

 

As for letting dogs be dogs, I think most of us strive for a balance between our human needs and the needs of our pets. Yes, I spoil my dogs, and I'm not ashamed of that. Then again, I can take those same spoiled dogs out in public and they are quite mannerly, even in a large group and off leash. My dogs can sniff on walks, but there are times when a walk means business (say, for example, I'm trying to condition a dog after an injury) and meandering around and sniffing everything in sight aren't going to help us meet a goal. I can also take my spoiled dogs out when the sheep are running down the road and know that they will do the job they need to do to get the sheep back, and do it right. If I need to get the flock up ahead of a storm the night before the shearer is to arrive, those same spoiled and coddled dogs will do the work willingly and well. If the neighbor's cattle get out in the middle of the night, I can roust my dog off my bed and we'll go help get them back. The point being that spoiling/coddling, allowing the dog in the house and on the furniture, feeding it premium food, etc. doesn't automatically equate with a dog who is not only obnoxious but also useless. In fact, it can mean quite the opposite. It's all about keeping things in perspective. My dogs know where they can get away with stuff and where they can't and we're all pretty happy with that arrangement as far as I can tell.

 

I probably also spend more money on my dogs' food than I do on my own, and I'm sure I spend way more at the vet than I ever have with a human doctor, but thanks to mom (that pesky person with high standards from way back when), I consider that part of the responsibility of owning a pet. I can be my own advocate, and it's my choice what I want to eat or when I want to seek medical care. The family dog(s) has no such choices, so it's up to me to be that animal's advocate, and in my mind, when I take on the responsibility of owning an animal, that responsibility includes giving that animal the *best care* I can. Not just sufficient care or minimal care, but the *best care.* I see nothing wrong with that.

 

I'm sure I could say more, but this is enough for now.

 

J.

[WildFlower]

Wow. That was a great post Julie.

 

I have been following this thread from the beginning but I thought that deserved a comment.

 

Much agreed.

[Laurae]

Woo hoo! Yeah! What Julie said!

[kaos]

Great post Julie!

 

Sara

[SoloRiver]

These are wild dogs, not wolves.

 

African wild dogs are not dogs. They are not even in the same genus as dogs/wolves. They are dogs in the sense that they are canids, but they are not dogs in the sense that you think and they are less closely related to domestic dogs than wolves are.

 

It is not necessary to cite what wild animals do to make the argument that elaborate greeting rituals are normal behavior for dogs. Anyone who lives with dogs could tell you that.