Tangent from Fetching thread

[grenzehund]

The US is not one homogeneous culture, nor is the UK (of which, Wales is a part). In fact I was referring to the cultural backgrounds of Lenajo and myself rather than US vs. UK as such.

Or, to be slightly more accurate, you are referring to your perception of what Lenajo's cultural background is, and your memory of how things were in your community (broadly speaking) some years ago.

 

There was no need to kennel or crate them to make a statement about their status.

One might want to question those imagined people of Lenajo's imagined background to see, if in fact, they kennel or crate their dogs in order to make such a statement.

 

They knew their place and didn't need to be confined or chained.

One might wish to go back in time and ask those Welsh (and a few British?) sheepdogs if that in fact is true.

 

Or not.

Susan

[Shetlander]

I admit that i am a total novice and know next to nothing about sheepherding but shouldn't those dogs be able to turn off that magical border collie switch and just chill out because herding sheep is both physically and mentally challenging?

 

I don't know much of anything about sheep herding either, other than Quinn has had a good number of private lessons. There is nothing he loves more than working sheep, but I haven't ever noticed a greater desire on his part to "chill" after a lesson. We do have a 90 minute trip from the farm, during which he is sacked out, but he is always raring to go when we get home.

 

Of course, as is apparent in that long tennis balls thread, not everyone thinks of fetch as "mindless." I live in a subdivision and Quinn only sees sheep once in a big while any more. There is nowhere I can take him to run off leash safely. I think he finds walks on leash around our neighborhood quite interesting (he's a bit of a nosey Parker) but they do not satisfy his need to stretch his muscles and burn off a little steam. So we play lots of fetch which he loves. I stopped doing agility and obedience with him a year or more ago. Quinn spends much of his time at my side and interacting with people. He comes to work with me three days a week, is a fantastic ride along dog in the car, and a real "helper" around the house and office. One of his favorite games is putting small towels or socks into the laundry drop, placing recycling pop cans into the bin, putting away toys, picking up things I've dropped, etc. Not hugely taxing to his mind but he likes being involved.

 

I crate my puppies until I feel they are safe to leave loose. Currently, the 11 year old Sheltie is loose in the kitchen where she has access to a comfy crate because otherwise she will nuisance bark out the front window as soon as I am pulling out of the garage. The 7 year old Lhasa is crated when I leave or he is prone to mark. 4 year old Quinn has been loose in the rest of the house since he was about 21 months old. I probably could have left him loose sooner but I'm cautious with that privilege. From what I can tell, he spends most, if not all his time, lounging and dozing on the big comfy chair by the front window.

 

I do think crating can help to create a good off switch but that is through management (pup can't run wild doing what he wants or demanding attention if he's crated). And it isn't the whole equation. The most vital thing I find with puppies figuring out the right schedule of rest, play, free time, & training that works for that particular pup in that particular setting.

[red russel]

Most of our dogs will actually crate themselves. Good things happen in a crate. They get fed, they have privacy, it is a safe place to relax and ignore the bustle of the world outside. I'm positive they would lock themselves in if they had opposable thumbs! We also have privacy kennels for our dogs. Again, comfortable, safe, and reassuring. Excellent place for dogs to dry out and lose their mud after working. Just as important is that I know they are safe when I have to leave.

 

dave

www.leadmeontraining.com

[juliepoudrier]

I have little knowledge of how working dogs are treated in the US, but I know that from what I remember of where I grew up (S. Wales), working sheep dogs were part of the family. There was no need to kennel or crate them to make a statement about their status.

JLJ,

This is your original statement. You then go on to state that the dogs were relegated to the outer kitchen when allowed in the house and that they didn't need to be kenneled or crated to "know their status."

 

Maybe we have different interpretations of what it means to be "part of the family," but in my book that means actually being *part of the family* and not being relegated to some part of the house where the people aren't themselves hanging out.

 

As Wendy pointed out, living in the outer kitchen is really no different than being kenneled or crated when it comes to determining whether the dog is part of the family. I don't quite see how living in the outer kitchen/storage area is not being confined. According to your description, the dogs don't have the run of the house, nor are they staying in the same area of the house as the human family members.

 

Perhaps you mean by "part of the family" that the dogs were valued and respected, but that's not really the same as being part of the family; that is, joining in family life on their off hours.

 

Oh, and FWIW, pets don't *have* to sleep on the furniture. Some folks allow it and some don't. Just a point of clarification. To me a beloved family pet actually spends time with the family in the family's normal setting, but doesn't have to be on the furniture, etc.

 

I really don't see how sleeping in the outer kitchen/storage area is that much different from sleeping in a specially designed kennel or in a straw filled stall in a barn or some other variation thereof. In none of those instances is the dog actually interacting with humans on its "off hours;" the only thing that's different is the actual location of the dog WRT to the humans.

 

J.

[JohnLloydJones]

According to your description, the dogs don't have the run of the house, nor are they staying in the same area of the house as the human family members.

I specifically mentioned their sleeping quarters. The dogs I was referring to were unconstrained (which really was the point I was trying to make) and did mingle with people in house, though they wouldn't have been allowed in the areas with fine furniture except for special occasions (the same would probably apply to children).

[Lenajo]

I specifically mentioned their sleeping quarters. The dogs I was referring to were unconstrained (which really was the point I was trying to make) and did mingle with people in house, though they wouldn't have been allowed in the areas with fine furniture except for special occasions (the same would probably apply to children).

 

Bringing the dog in for a treat and a pat on Easter and Christmas does not a housedog make.

 

These unconstrained dogs - they opened and closed the door to the summer kitchen themselves?

[JohnLloydJones]

Bringing the dog in for a treat and a pat on Easter and Christmas does not a housedog make.

No, it certainly doesn't; nor is that what I wrote.

 

These unconstrained dogs - they opened and closed the door to the summer kitchen themselves?

The door, if it existed at all, would rarely have been latched.

[Dixie_Girl]

When I first got Jackson (my first Border Collie, but not my first dog by any means!), and found this board, this is one of the first questions I asked about! Up to that point, the only people that I knew that had Border Collies were people who actually worked their dogs. They did trialing for sure, but they were mainly for working. And they ALL kept their dogs in kennels, outside. The folks I bought Jackson from did the same with theirs, except one female the wife insisted on keeping in the house, and when the husband told me about it, there was discust in his voice. In his mind, dogs just weren't suppose to be in the house.

 

So, I came here and was very concerned that somehow keeping Jackson in the house with me would affect his working ability. As with this thread I was given pros and cons, and it was pretty much the consensus that it was individual preference. I think the reason most dogs are usually allowed to go with their handlers unleashed at trials, is because they are kenneled. They do not expect to "mingle" with other dogs. They have a job to do and that is all that is on their minds. When my trainer brings her main dog out, she has no interest in greeting me, or sniffing Jackson. She wants to know what her job is and to get with it. I think working dogs that work every day and are kenneled develop a certain brain mainframe that is built from the time they are born. I saw a show about feral children and the ones that had been without human voice from infancy, was never able to develop true language, because those brain "paths" were not developed and the brain disengaged them, shut them down. So, perhaps it is the same with working dogs that are kenneled except when working. They don't "socialize" yet they are able to work around and with other dogs. They are not included in "meeting" folks, yet they don't get snarky with them. They are simply not an important object in the dogs mind. I think the people who do their dogs like this care a great deal for their dogs, but they don't consider them "fur kids" or part of the family per se. But they are still a big part of their life. When you work, stock work, with your dog, you do create a bond. But it is still different from a pet bond. It is more like a partnership.

 

That said, I did not kennel or crate Jackson. And he has a split personality. When he is at home, he is a goof ball toy playing fool. When he is working stock, nothing else in the world exists except him, the sheep, (or chickens!) and me.

 

So based on MY experience, it is still just a matter of preference. This is not in reference to people who kennel or crate and ignore the dog or throw them out in the backyard and never or seldom interact with them. Just wanted to clarify that!

[Lenajo]

I think working dogs that work every day and are kenneled develop a certain brain mainframe that is built from the time they are born. I saw a show about feral children and the ones that had been without human voice from infancy, was never able to develop true language, because those brain "paths" were not developed and the brain disengaged them, shut them down. So, perhaps it is the same with working dogs that are kenneled except when working. They don't "socialize" yet they are able to work around and with other dogs.

 

Comparing working dogs who are TRAINED TO BEHAVE to the social and emotional retardation of feral children is one of the most offensive analogies I have ever heard on the Boards. Ever. Bar None.

 

Congratulations. Not.

 

When I person goes in to their job, do you fault them when they quietly and efficiently go about it, only socializing when appropriate and in a subdued manner as appropriate for the job?

 

OR do you question their mental status because they are not running around their job like a human "dog" park?

[kelpiegirl]

Actually Wendy, there are many scientific studies using animals (primates mostly) to try and elucidate the effects of the absence of normal "mothering" and well, cuddling, for lack of a better term, and paralleling that to human attachment disorders at this time. I know Linda was not trying to denigrate retarded children.

 

Animals who are brought up with social behaviours and are not permitted to engage in them, will not be able to form normal attachments, and species appropriate interactions.

 

Scott and Fuller did a study many moon 'go with Beagle pups- segregating some pups from any contact, and they grew to be afraid of their environment, strangers, and did not form attachments. Similar to the primate studies that have been conducted.

 

Working dogs are fulfilled by their work, and the occasional pat, with some individuals requiring more. Where they live, I don't believe is as important as how they live. Take sled dogs. They don't exactly live in the house. But, they are probably some of the happiest dogs alive- they are doing what they have been bred to to. Attention and affection come in many forms.

[Dixie_Girl]

WHOA!!!! Hold on just a cotton pickin minute! The ONLY comparison that was made was the brain pathways that are developed or not. I was not comparing a single other thing. It was an example of how brains can either have certain electrical pathways inhanced or not. Are you telling me that a dog that spends 5 years on a mountain top with no one but one person interacting with it will have the same "need" to be with other people that MOST NORMAL dogs that are socialised do? NOTHING in this world is etched in stone. There are exceptions to every rule. Why you think that me explaining how brain patterns that are disengaged and therefore lost forever is an offense to those poor feral kids is a mystery to me. I am hoping you just misunderstood me or your having a bad day or you didn't read it right or I didn't explain it well. All I was trying to say is that if you took one of my dogs right now, and put them outside in a kennel and came out once a day to work him then put him back, he would not be a happy camper. Because of his interaction with the family for all of his life, that is as vital to him as exercise and mental stimulation. Dogs that are kenneled all their lives do not have that same "need". Please ask for clarification before you decide to jump down someones throat. I meant absolutely NO slight to those kids.

[Dixie_Girl]

Actually Wendy, there are many scientific studies using animals (primates mostly) to try and elucidate the effects of the absence of normal "mothering" and well, cuddling, for lack of a better term, and paralleling that to human attachment disorders at this time. I know Linda was not trying to denigrate retarded children.

 

Animals who are brought up with social behaviours and are not permitted to engage in them, will not be able to form normal attachments, and species appropriate interactions.

 

Scott and Fuller did a study many moon 'go with Beagle pups- segregating some pups from any contact, and they grew to be afraid of their environment, strangers, and did not form attachments. Similar to the primate studies that have been conducted.

 

Working dogs are fulfilled by their work, and the occasional pat, with some individuals requiring more. Where they live, I don't believe is as important as how they live. Take sled dogs. They don't exactly live in the house. But, they are probably some of the happiest dogs alive- they are doing what they have been bred to to. Attention and affection come in many forms.

 

Thank you. I believe you explained it much better than I did!

[juliepoudrier]

Linda,

I understood what you meant, but I still disagree with some of it. My dogs are housedogs and they are working dogs. At trials they stay with me just fine and aren't necessarily interested in greeting people or other dogs because they know there's work at hand. At home they're pretty much the same way. If I have someone here for lessons, they aren't interested in the person or lesson dog *unless* it becomes clear that they (my dogs) are not going to work, and then they might decide to be a bit more social with the visitors.

 

I have no issues with folks who choose to kennel their dogs vs. letting them live in the house. My choice is to let my dogs live in the house. But that doesn't make my dogs any less serious or workmanlike than dogs who happen to be kenneled instead. You pretty much said the same with respect to Jackson: at home he's a friendly goof, but when there's work to be done, he's all business.

 

Oh and the fault I find with your analogy regarding feral children is that I expect most owners of working dogs--whether they live in kennels or in the house--do socialize them to some extent. I'm sure there are some who are left in kennels and essentially ignored until it's time to be trained, but I'd imagine that's more of the exception than the rule.

 

J.

[Dixie_Girl]

Julie, I will agree that there is socialization going on just by attending trials and being around all the different people, animals and such. Again, I was not as clear as perhaps I should have been. When I said they were not "socialized", I meant with respect to puposly taking them to "play dates" or dog parks, or what have you for the express purpose of letting their dogs interact with different dogs and people. Also, my knowledge of "working folks" is limited to those in SC and GA, and by no means includes all of them. I was simply stating my own observations of things that I have seen. I have not seen any problem with Jackson living with me and making "go to town" runs (in the winter!) adversly affecting his work with stock. In fact, when I first started training him, my trainer was quite sure I had ruined him by letting him fall so in love with fetching balls! I think she was sure about it because once when we had been training a while, she brought a ball out, and Jackson ignored it in favor of the sheep. I never said anything, but inside me there was a big WHEW!

 

BTW, my analogy with the feral children had nothing to do with socializing per se. It had to do with the wiring in the brain. I think that is why it is so hard to change things you grew up with. Why it is hard to overcome childhood fears. IE, I still am freaked out around clowns! But that is really what I meant. Dogs raised in the house around people and their goings on will be more comfortable than a dog that has spent all their life in a kennel. Again, there are exceptions. I know there will be many people who have dogs that were raised in the house with lots of folks around and they are still skittish in those situations, but on the whole, I believe dogs, like people, are comfortable with what they know.