Replies

Actually, I had the benefit of both worlds. My dad was a marine, but my grandparents and uncles and cousins all had farms. Actually, the first time I was bitten by a dog at all was on a farm by a cocker spaniel. The second was a rhodesian ridgeback, and the third, a border collie (by far the meanest of the three, not that I am biased. I like them all)

I am absolutely not of the belief that we should treat dogs like people. That is the worst thing you could ever assume about an animal. They have different needs, wants, body language, and agendas.

But there's a problem. No, a farm dog can't go around killing the merchandise. But to say that dog was somehow defective is like saying a child born from a long line of doctors is defective for wanting to be a writer. Of course all dogs have very distinct personalities, and even dogs bred for a certain purpose sometimes just aren't good at it. But to say that the dog is "bad" for not being the right fit is just wrong. Perhaps back in the day I can see someone shooting a dog for this, because no one would want that dog for any other reason, but nowadays, you could find that dog a home with people who don't have a farm, don't need a working dog, don't have other pets but love to play frisbee, or want an active dog, or can spend the time needed to address its issues and work with it.

I have seen some dogs that I personally would have thought hopeless completely turn around with the right environments. Not to say that they can all be helped. I am not of that mentality. Some dogs are not right in the head, but it's such a small percentage, and most often there is a medical reason (being inbred, retarded, oxygen starved when born, etc.)but the ones with issues that aren't medical fall under two categories: one is the dog that had a rough start but still may have a chance with lots of time and patience. The other is the dog that had a rough start in life and just couldn't deal, and is now simply not fit to live with people and should probably be put out of its misery.

And I don't ever remember saying it's ok to have a dog confined. I too believe many of us get pets that end up suffering greatly because we are too selfish to see that their needs are met, both physically and mentally. My dogs have a huge yard that is well protected which they cannot escape, but most of the time they are with me, whether it's in the house, running errands, going fishing, running, or training for agility which they LOVE. And believe me, my dogs get plenty of what they need. I was one of those few people who actually researched the breed long before I ever had one, and I provide everything my dogs could want aside of simply letting them loose.

However, I don't think just because a dog is on a farm working, or doing agility, or hunting that it's happy or fulfilled as far as dogs go. In fact, just because they're constantly working and outdoors doesn't mean that's what they want. And don't think for a second that they like it much when they're left outside in bad weather, or when they catch diseases or get hit by cars on those back roads. The farm life may be great for the dog's owners, who can just set food out for them and work them when they want, or just let them fend for themselves completely, but don't think for a second you are doing the dog any favors with that life. As far as farm dogs go, they seem to live shorter lives than dogs kept indoors, properly fed, and fixed.

Well ... so so ... but I think that treating dogs like people and putting them on the same level as people are two different things. It's a fine line, I know ... and both are bad, but of the two I think the second is worse, although I suppose I sound hypocritical because I so firmly beleive that dogs and cats especially, if not all mammals, are worthy of dignity. My dad, who has immense respect for dogs but any dog around my dad knows who's boss (hint: it ain't the dog), always had a faint contempt for "pet" dogs because to him, it was an insult to their dignity. I agree about the "dignity" thing, but I have long disagreed with him on one point, and that is that the ridiculous, beribboned frilly little poodles which perpetually nestled in the arms of my great aunties and yapped at visitors, didn't have a job. They did. My beloved grandmother-in-law had a woefully undisciplined cocker spaniel, but that dog had a job and did it beautifully -- he kept Grandma entertained and spiritually hopeful and healthy. Those dogs, too, have dignity of a sort. Not a manly dignity (!), but dignity nonetheless and a very useful and worthy purpose.

The farm life may be great for the dog's owners, who can just set food out for them and work them when they want, or just let them fend for themselves completely, but don't think for a second you are doing the dog any favors with that life.

You completetly lose me there. Only trash people treat their workmates so shoddily. On the contrary, the cowboys (I'm talking cowdogs on ranches, not farm dogs) loved their dogs, took great pride and derived great joy from them, and the dogs did the same. You really had to see it to believe it, but it was true. There was a relationship between man and dog, in the working cowboy or ranch sense, that was beyond description. The only words that come to mind are joy, verve, and humor, as often the dogs had senses of humor and pulled jokes on people and livestock, fully aware of what they were doing, and loving being part of a laughing, fun work environment. I am certain that those dogs lives, if they were shorter (and you'd be surprised at how old those noble old fellows got and how well loved and cared for they were in thier dotage, because the cowboys who owned them felt indebted to them) were indeed more blessed with joy and happiness than a dog whose world revolves around a nine-to-five owner and a quarter-acre backyard. Don't think for a second otherwise.