Why dogs (crime rate, move, teach)

[Frostnip]

Originally Posted by Frostnip

I don't know, I've never had a dog just for "companionship." My dog does need to be under my control, because she's expected to do her dog job - guarding the house, and pest control. She wouldn't be much good for guarding if she immediately stand down when told to, and she wouldn't be much good as a ratter if she ran off chasing things willy-nilly and got tromped by a moose or a passing truck or whatever. Her being obedient keeps her safe, and keeps the humans and non-prey animals around her safe, too.

That should be "if she didn't immediately stand town when told to by me," whoops. I ought to read my posts before hitting "submit reply"

[NomadicBear]

Originally Posted by OLGRUMPY

Why are you moving up here? Stay there... the economys going bad here to, cost of living is high, and we dont need eanymore discusting dogs here

OLGRUMPY is clearly just a fecal elimination orifice of the highest order who hates dogs. It's not the dogs' fault, but their irresponsible owners, and instead of blaming the animals he should go to the owners respective houses, and talk to them about the problems he is having. Instead, he makes insulting comments such as the above to responsible owners who have nothing to do with his misery (like the dogs do either-who is he kidding?). I love dogs, and cannot stand the OLGRUMPY's of the world, and people like Moose Whisperer who think it's ok to shoot a dog with a rock-loaded slingshot for heeding nature's call. I'll stop here before I get myself in trouble with the moderators.

[AK-Cathy]

the economys going bad here to, cost of living is high, and we dont need eanymore discusting dogs here


Grumpy's bias is showing and he (Grumpy is probably a he) is living up to his chosen moniker. Not only is he irrationally hostile to innocent pets rather than their ignorant, neglectful and irresponsible owners, but he is also literacy challenged too, which is one of my pet peeves most especially since misspellings on CD are underlined in red as a handy dandy little helper. A small thing I know, but how hard is it to correct spelling errors for clarity?

What started out as a legitimate complaint (chronic barking, loose, running dogs and then people not cleaning up after pets) morphed into dog bashing by some including the OP. This leads me, and probably most of us, into not caring a bit to help address his problem as most of those problems (and I'm sure there are many) are likely self made anyway. So just stew in those old misery juices Grumpy and go to the devil, is what I believe many are saying or would like to say.

A predictable but unfortunate turn for the real and important topic at hand.


I'll stop here before I get myself in trouble with the moderators.

After Nephler's little but succinct commentary I think you are probably safe Bear.

[naturesdreams]

Originally Posted by blueflames50

wait'n to see Rance snarl for Alpha position....as he is now a proud owner of an ankle biter/barker 4 legged child! of course his cat is larger than Grizz.


I think Nephler just took Alpha Male position!! I concur Ed!

OMG... too funny LOL... well maybe oldgrump stepped in some the other day...

[Alaskapat528]

Originally Posted by Nephler

Those that know me on this forum know that I would place my life in danger to save my dogs. They are my family.

Exactly. And my dogs are watchdogs who would die defending us.

[blueflames50]

Originally Posted by Frostnip

I don't know, I've never had a dog just for "companionship." My dog does need to be under my control, because she's expected to do her dog job - guarding the house, and pest control. She wouldn't be much good for guarding if she immediately stand down when told to, and she wouldn't be much good as a ratter if she ran off chasing things willy-nilly and got tromped by a moose or a passing truck or whatever. Her being obedient keeps her safe, and keeps the humans and non-prey animals around her safe, too.

Maybe with a dog that's 100% pure pet you it's not so crucial, but I wouldn't want to be responsible for the potential results of taking that dog around kids or strangers.

all of our dogs provided exactly this that you are bringing up an did so without us every having to hit, yell or punish them in order to show them what was expected of them. They were all also companions as well. they also all house trained without ever having to "rub" their noses in it...that is one of the worse things you can do to an animal.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Frostnip

I don't know, I've never had a dog just for "companionship." My dog does need to be under my control, because she's expected to do her dog job - guarding the house, and pest control. She wouldn't be much good for guarding if she immediately stand down when told to, and she wouldn't be much good as a ratter if she ran off chasing things willy-nilly and got tromped by a moose or a passing truck or whatever. Her being obedient keeps her safe, and keeps the humans and non-prey animals around her safe, too.

Maybe with a dog that's 100% pure pet you it's not so crucial, but I wouldn't want to be responsible for the potential results of taking that dog around kids or strangers.

I agree completely. Someone who cannot control their dog should not own one. Control does not mean abuse, it means properly training your dog to respond to your commands. Unfortunately, a great number of dog owners lack the knowledge and skills necessary to train their dog.

I also have never owned a dog merely for companionship, although they do provide that service. My dogs are "working" dogs, primarily hunting dogs. Buddy, my male Mastiff, is the first dog I have owned that was not a hunting dog. His personality is different from all the other dogs I have owned, and therefore requires different training methods. If, for example, my other dogs were to see a moose or a stranger on the property, their first reaction would be to bark and make a false charge unless I control them. Not Buddy. I do not have to say a word, he silently inserts himself between me and the moose or stranger and just watches. That was not something I needed to train him to do, it comes naturally to this breed just as fetching comes naturally to my other Labradors and Retrievers.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by AK-Cathy

Grumpy's bias is showing and he (Grumpy is probably a he) is living up to his chosen moniker. Not only is he irrationally hostile to innocent pets rather than their ignorant, neglectful and irresponsible owners, but he is also literacy challenged too, which is one of my pet peeves most especially since misspellings on CD are underlined in red as a handy dandy little helper. A small thing I know, but how hard is it to correct spelling errors for clarity?


.

Not to defend old grumpy, but that's not entirely true about spelling errors being underlined in red on CD. It depends on what browser you're using. On the desktop in my living room, I had an old outdated version of Internet Explorer and there wasn't a red line to be seen. I put Firefox on a few days ago and now it has automatic spell check.

Spell check or not, old grumpy's message is pretty clear. He sounds unhappy.

[gobrien]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Not to defend old grumpy, but that's not entirely true about spelling errors being underlined in red on CD. It depends on what browser you're using. On the desktop in my living room, I had an old outdated version of Internet Explorer and there wasn't a red line to be seen. I put Firefox on a few days ago and now it has automatic spell check.

Spell check or not, old grumpy's message is pretty clear. He sounds unhappy.

Yes, you are right, my Internet Explorer doesn't spell check but Google Chrome does.

I wouldn't want to be surrounded by barking dogs. Someone suggested going around to talk to the neighbors but I doubt that would help in our overly defensive society.

[RedJacket]

Originally Posted by gobrien

Yes, you are right, my Internet Explorer doesn't spell check but Google Chrome does.

Spell check doesn't always spell check the spelling correctly. Spell out Lambeau as in Lambeau Field and you'll get the red underline. So spell check has a ways to go before it can be put in the same spelling category as spell check Dan Quayle.