Dogs and being Kept outside, What is your opinion? (lab, skin, train)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found your comment quite disturbing and condescending as well. 'Our duty as humans to keep them from harms way'? That's the same tone I got from several anonymous 'rep points' from people who chastised me for allowing my dog to get hurt by barbed wire when he ran into it while chasing pheasants, and how it was cruel and they'd never let their dogs do that.
At least I respect you for posting in open forum.
FWIW- I have never used rep points to make anonymous negative comments to anyone. It matters not to me whether or not you believe me.
I found your comment quite disturbing and condescending as well. 'Our duty as humans to keep them from harms way'? That's the same tone I got from several anonymous 'rep points' from people who chastised me for allowing my dog to get hurt by barbed wire when he ran into it while chasing pheasants, and how it was cruel and they'd never let their dogs do that.
If they were completely out of harms way my dogs would never get a chance to do what the really love to do. Crickey if I wanted my kids to be out of harms way they would never hike, rock climb, camp or do anything they like to do in Griz country either.
At least I respect you for posting in open forum.
Yeah I totally agree with this. Scolding an owner for allowing a dog to be a dog is not fair. Stuff happens be it a dog in a field or a kid on a skateboard. Does an injury mean the kid should be watching TV instead of playing on a skateboard?
You can cast negative rep votes? I never knew that, I always use the positive ones only.
Whatever the "historical" role of dogs and their breeding- which is very much up for debate, even by qualified scholars- in contemporary culture it is utterly irresponsible to put your dog in a potentially dangerous and totally avoidable situation and then expect them to protect themselves (and you). It is ridiculously illogical on multiple levels to compare acceptable practices in an African village to acceptable practices in this country.
In some areas of this country...and in many other countries still...dogs are currently needed/used for those historical purposes and are highly valued as such. Just because the majority of people in the U.S. keep dogs as companions does not mean that they no longer have an important working role for some people/families.
I see where you are coming from emotionally but it is a fact of life that some jobs are inherently dangerous. Danger lurks in many places on a working farm/ranch. Should humans disallow their kids to grow up working the family farm/ranch because it is dangerous? If they did that they would soon go under. Using a dog for the purpose originally bred is not irresponsible IMO. They are a necessary working partner to the ranching/farming family. Believe me, the dogs that are good at what they do enjoy it. You cannot force a dog to hunt, herd, go to ground, protect, etc.
Just as with companion dogs, some working dogs are very well taken care of and others are not. That is not a function of working dogs but a function of humanity.
I have a friend whose Standard Poodle broke his neck last year running through extremely dense brush to a retrieve. It was tragic. But that dog had the best life he could've because he lived for the hunt. And he was cherished by an owner who takes excellent care of her dogs (SPs and Chessies) while providing them with lots of mental and physical stimulation through obedience, agility and hunting.
Yeah I totally agree with this. Scolding an owner for allowing a dog to be a dog is not fair. Stuff happens be it a dog in a field or a kid on a skateboard. Does an injury mean the kid should be watching TV instead of playing on a skateboard?
You can cast negative rep votes? I never knew that, I always use the positive ones only.
Rep points allow people to make comments anonymously. Several people use it to hide behind. Sad but true.
If they want to stay outside all day like they did today, great! I'm not fearful of the mountain lions, coyotes, eagles, bears or other 'scary' animals that roam the north hills that may harm my precious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun
It's funny that americans seem to have become the 'protector' of these animals when in most cases they were bred to do that for us.
The bolded comments were what I was referring to. I already stated that it is great to allow a dog to be a dog- no problem. I have no issue with dogs used for hunting or working; in fact I have vigorously defended such dogs in other posts.
However, his first comment above reflects a disregard and scorn for the dangers inherent in allowing his dog/s what sounds like free run of wilderness areas.
His second comment above appears to say that he feels his dogs should protect him, that he does not bear responsibility for making sound judgments on his dogs' behalf.
A poodle being mortally injured in the midst of a routine hunt or a bear falling on a dog are horrible and tragic, but they were random and unforeseeable. But the perspective that says that you aren't fearful about the entirely realistic harm coming to your "precious" is reckless. With children and dogs, we need to be able to weigh the dangers/risk against quality of life and then make sound decisions on their behalf.
So, again, it is great to let a dog be a dog- but we humans need to exercise judgment in exposing the dogs in our care to risk. From his comments above, it does not appear that threerun exercises that judgment.
Others are clearly welcome to read his statements differently than I do.
Oh poppycock. I plainly said in my posts that my blue tick chose to be an outside dog and she relished in that role. Our kids were 5-7 and they would go off and play in the woods or down at the creek and Blue stuck to them like glue.
We lived along two creeks, heavily wooded with copperheads, raccoons, fox etc. I was never worried when blue was with them.
Here's a rabid fox blue held at bay down in our woods when the kids were playing in the creek. I was off a hundred yards practicing with my bow and sprinted over there when i heard her sound off.
Thank god I had an outdoor dog. She knew every square inch of that place by smell and wouldn't let ANYTHING get to my kids. Did she live exposed to danger? Of course she did! And she dutifully did a great job and we loved her for it. She WAS a protector and that's what we needed!
I guess a better person would never let their kids outside to play and would never expect a dog to defend us. Shame on me for putting kids and dogs knowingly in harms way.
I am just wondering, How many people think it is ok to leave a dog outside whether you are home or not?
Of course with shelter and water. Why is this better or not better than keeping them crated all day inside?
I think it's fine if the dog has shelter and plenty of good and water. Obviously if he is a barker, then that would be a problem. I was raised in a time when most people did keep their dogs outside. Personally I could never live with a dog in my house. I love them, but I can't deal with the mess. Cats are no problem, but I wouldn't have any more pets unless I had a dang cleaning lady.
The bolded comments were what I was referring to. I already stated that it is great to allow a dog to be a dog- no problem. I have no issue with dogs used for hunting or working; in fact I have vigorously defended such dogs in other posts.
However, his first comment above reflects a disregard and scorn for the dangers inherent in allowing his dog/s what sounds like free run of wilderness areas.
His second comment above appears to say that he feels his dogs should protect him, that he does not bear responsibility for making sound judgments on his dogs' behalf.
A poodle being mortally injured in the midst of a routine hunt or a bear falling on a dog are horrible and tragic, but they were random and unforeseeable. But the perspective that says that you aren't fearful about the entirely realistic harm coming to your "precious" is reckless. With children and dogs, we need to be able to weigh the dangers/risk against quality of life and then make sound decisions on their behalf.
So, again, it is great to let a dog be a dog- but we humans need to exercise judgment in exposing the dogs in our care to risk. From his comments above, it does not appear that threerun exercises that judgment.
Others are clearly welcome to read his statements differently than I do.
I see what you are saying.
How do you feel about cow dogs that risk foreseeable injury on a routine basis? Is that level of risk acceptable? I remember you wrote that you understand the role of LGDs. They also risk foreseeable injury on a routine basis. Is that level of risk also acceptable? Not trying to argue here. Just curious how you rationalize those.
LOL. Crating is how most people train their dogs. Not everyone wants their dog to "have the run of the house".
You mean crating is how most people don't bother to train their dogs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
