If you could go back, would you still have got your dog?

[Soubriquet]

I love my dogs to bits.

I really do

But if I could go back 2 years ago, I wouldn’t have got them.

They are very restrictive in what you can do. You can’t be spontaneous. You always have to consider the dogs.

The cat couldn’t care less but the dogs need you to care.

They need to be walked and loved.

And you have to clean up their mess when they decide to destroy something.

I have committed to these dogs and I will give them 100% but when these two pass away, we have decided no more dogs.

Serious question. Whereisthe natural environment of say for example a Yorkshire terrier? There's an argument that 100s of years of domestication means that living and working alongside humansisthe domestic dogs natural environment

Terriers were bred as ratters, mostly in the Victorian and Edwardian period. Understandable in the industrial overcrowded slums ot the 19th century and maybe still have a use in some places now but a dog can never be fully domesticated, obviously, or we wouldn't have so many dog attacks both inside and outside people's homes. No mattet how well 'trained'
If dogs had been left in their natural environment, in the wild and without any human contact, there would only be a tiny fraction of their present numbers in existence now. Humans took dogs and bred them, or rather inbred them, for work purposes, as working dogs. So to answer your question, there is no 'natural environment" for most dogs now because the whole history of breeding and training dogs was unnatural in the first place. Infact many breeds of dog are now so inbred that without the intervention and treatment by vets they would die

@CarolDanvers, I also wonder about the 'natural environment' of the domestic dog. The dog diverged from the wolf tens of thousands of years ago, and dogs are a human creation. I don't agree with humanising dogs and they are definitely not people in fur suits, but many dogs crave human contact as well as human company.

Yes. I'd have got 2, in fact.

Our dog has massively changed our life.

He was a rescue (our second rescue and we are both life long dog owners so would consider ourselves experienced).

He is extremely dog reactive, so much so that we can’t let him off the lead ever. We have tried behaviour and other trainers but very little improvement.

He unfortunately bit a post woman when she put a leaflet through the letterbox (he jumped up to grab the letter and got her finger, she was ok but had to report the incident and the police got involved), we ended up in court and he got a dog control order put on him, so we are not allowed to leave him with anyone, can’t be around kids, can’t be kennelled etc.

It means that in the 10 years we have had him, we don’t generally have people over, have to arrange for workman etc to come when we are both off, or shut him in a room upstairs, have only holidayed together in this country, cottages etc.

But, we both adore him. Indoors, with just us, he is the funniest, most loving little dog. He make us laugh every day, has funny quirks and habits which we love

I can see why we should regret having him, he has limited our social lives and obviously caused the post lady distress, but we wouldn’t be without him and I dread the day he is no longer with us.

I’m a part-time dog owner. Ie. Look after a friend’s dog When they’re away. He’s placid and fairly easy.

Would I get a dog full-time? Work commitments prevent us at the moment. Although puppies are cute, would prefer a teen, judging from other people’s experiences. Maybe in the future.

For now, enjoy being a part-time dog owner.

My old dog who I sacrificed everything for Yes, I still would be got him. I gave up so much of a life for him, but he was my best friend.

We recently tried to get a rescue. I have three young kids - the rescue assured us this dog was great with other dogs, could be left etc. They knew I had three young kids. He was very aggressive with other dogs. The kids became petrified of him, and are now scared of other dogs. We weren't the right family to help him with his issues and I returned him, and told her she needs to change her description of him because he absolutely wasn't good win other dogs and needed a sole adult to walk him and help him with on going training. I have no regrets returning him.

@Flaxmeadow

I understand everything you say but you said that animals should be in their natural environment. With humans, in and around human homes, because of our actions is now their natural environment. I am not sure whether the argument that that is unnatural stands up really because we too are just animals, doing what animals of our type do whether we like it or agree with it or not. Other animals of entirely different types work in partnership with each other too. As always though humans have taken it too far.

@Flaxmeadow, you're correct that many breeds have serious issues, but a lot of these are connected to their morphology rather than inbreeding per se. Inbreeding does cause certain problems, though, but these are not terminal provided breeders are prepared to outcross.

I'm not sure why you put 'training' in inverted commas. Dogs that are properly trained are generally well-mannered and not aggressive. That's why insurance companies will cover therapy dog organisations for taking dogs into nursing homes and schools.

My point is that dogs, not inbred and not in the wild, are unnatural to begin with. They do not 'naturally' belong anywhere near humans. I would go even further and say keeping pets is not 'natural'. Yes humans have 'taken it too far'

'Training' isn't natural either and there doesn't seem to be any consensus among professionals on how to best train a dog. Even the most well trained dogs have killed children, even dachshunds.

Yes!
But I think I had realised the huge responsibility prior to getting her. So much so I had a feeling of dread between meeting her and bringing her home.
But she is a joy. Improves my mental health, gets me out for walks, to the dog park and beach, gets me talking to neighbours and fellow dog walkers.
She sheds and brings a lot of sticks inside to tear up on my rug BUT I can leave her unsupervised in the house with the back door open for free range garden access (not in the UK, it is dry and warm here).
She is a breed that’s known for being lovely, gentle, affectionate and friendly, I would recommend getting a purebred for temperament to anyone.

Flaxmeadow if you are interested in how dogs have developed read Dogs by Ray & Lorna Coppinger.

It is totally natural for dogs to live with humans. It is the dogs that have chosen this path and we as humans have used it to our advantage over the centuries. Dogs have evolved over the years to be with humans from their choice and that is one of the huge differences between wolves and dogs.

It is all explained in depth in the book above

6 year old labrador. Honestly couldn't say.

Love him to bits but the commitment, impact on day to day plans, cost and the hair (!!) is much more than I ever imagined.

I've been at home this week and the dog walkers have still been taking him out as usual. The house is strangely quiet and empty when he's not there.

@jouska

Thanks I will look it up

I dont believe dogs can ever be fully trained, take a terrier dog, any type of terrier as an example of why keeping 'pets' now is unnatural and why train them is difficult. These dogs were bred, over hundreds of years, to catch and kill vermin, often sadly trained to the point of starvation, to do this as their working dog job. Now we have these terrier breeds in people's homes, no longer used for their historic purpose. How is that natural for the dog? How is it natural to keep this type of dog in a family home? If it's bred to catch rats and kill them, what should it do now? Why is it now thought appropriate to have them as a pet in our homes? How do you successfully un-train a dog out of its inbred compulsion and is it fair on the dog to expect it to comply?

How you untrain a dog not to follow an instinct is to understand how that instinct actually is driven by biology. Often & especially brain morphology.

You can then selectively breed those dogs without that level of biology and thus the instinct is reduced.

For example, sight houds are driven by sight. That is their instinct. The reason they find sight/movement so rewarding and enticing is to do with their retina cells: they have more cells that detect movement than other breeds, and those cells are placed more along a central/horizontal line than in other breeds. This means they can see movement on the horizon especially well. This is then linked in greater amounts to the reward centres of thier brain via the dopamine reward system.

But all generations will have naturally occuring genetic variation and mutation which allows for variation in the intensity of instinct as a result of the variation in physicality. By having a good understanding of dog behaviour you could select the least sight driven dogs over generations and weaken their ability and sense of reward at seeing (and chasing) fast moving animals etc. If you wanted to. You are essentially reversing the same selection that developed those biological extremes to start with.

We absolutely should be looking to breed/encourage variations of dogs better suited to home living if their main purpose in life is now as a pet.

The role of dogs has changed dramatically over the last 50 years and that has caused conflict between what keeps them happy and healthy and the way in which we want to live. The Culture Clash by Jead Donaldson is an interesting (to me) discussion on this.

@Flaxmeadow, I would agree that it is hard to train away from a dog's genetic wiring. You can, however, breed away from it. That is why some working breeds have a massive split between show and working types: not everyone wants a cocker with a full-on hunting drive and the urge and ability to go all day. That said, many working-bred dogs are delighted to hang out with people - my young one likes to spend the evening as close to me as possible. Being able to work and being able to be human-social are not mutually exclusive.

Dogs have lived in close proximity with people for millennia. When nomadic people slept around the fire their dogs slept with them (they still do). Roman ladies kept lapdogs. Hunting dogs bedded down on the floor of Saxon halls with the servants. Having dogs close by is nothing new and having dogs as pets is nothing new either.

Serpell's The Domestic Dog is also a good read.

I have a patterdale x jrt , definite working type his hunting / ratting instincts are satisfied by ripping the extremities off of his toys . I don’t feel remotely guilty about keeping him in a house as a pet .

I'm loving this discussion and book recommendations @GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman and @Jouska. I'm totally fascinated by the dog/human relationship.

Dogs have lived in close proximity with people for millennia. When nomadic people slept around the fire their dogs slept with them (they still do). Roman ladies kept lapdogs. Hunting dogs bedded down on the floor of Saxon halls with the servants. Having dogs close by is nothing new and having dogs as pets is nothing new either

But we dont live as nomads anymore or in an Anglo Saxon age. I find historical examples spurious anyway. Slavery has been happening 'for millenia'. That doesn't make it acceptable now.
Cock fighting, bear baiting, fox hunting, bull fighting. Keeping animals in cages still happens. What is a dog kept in a house if it isn't caged?
I dislike the whole concept of animals as 'pets' and I don't see any point to it, either for the owner or for the pet. What does the word 'pet' even mean? What does 'lapdog mean? I dislike the pet industry as well.
I enjoy watching nature programmes, seeing animals in their natural environment is enjoyable to me but whenever I see 'pets' it just doesn't seem right.
Why do people have pets?

@Floralnomad, we used to have one of those. She was a great house pet, but did have a tendency to go self-employed in the woods. Her brothers had great lives on the farm where they were born.

@CarolDanvers, I loved that recent piece of research about puppy-dog eyes and how dogs have evolved to bend us to their will...

Did you seriously just compare slavery to dog and human companionship? I'm not really sure how to respond to your wholly negative view of that relationship. As alluded to by an earlier poster dogs have approached humans to create relationships too - it goes both ways. To say a house is a cage to a dog is the same as saying it's a cage to us. Most animals have "dens" don't they? It's completely naturally behaviour to create shelter.

You don't understand companionship between humans and dogs, where do you stand on dogs who do vital work? Police dogs, guide dogs, medical emergency dogs?

Dogs kept as pets in a home are actually the vast minority. Most dogs across the globe live feral lives. They often choose to do so near human settlements (still) for all the same old reasons their ancestors did.

From an evolutionary pov it seems like the domestic dog chose humans, not the other way around. It also seems to have been a massively successful choice from an evolutionary pov. Their numbers far, far outstrip that of the grey wolf - whon might be seen as the ancestor who made a different 'choice'.

Appreciate none of that necessarily helps if you disagree with humans keeping animals for out own benefit...

The ‘we shouldn’t have pets’is the PETA opinion, not something I agree with at all. Dogs have been domesticated and adapted to living with us, the genetic traits of some breeds are lessened over the years. I have staffies and they have no aggression or urge to attack anything, our collie had a slight tendency to herd but that stopped by 2 and with redirecting her.
The OP in this case I think got her wee chi’s without a lot of forethought especially if her DH won’t walk them, they sound indulged poorly trained dogs; they’re dogs not toys.

@Flaxmeadow, I was trying to point out that the keeping of pets, or indeed living with dogs, is nothing new, since you seemed to be suggesting that these were modern aberrations.

Caging? I'm not sure how you square off-lead exercise with that.

Why do people keep pets? Because they enjoy them. Why do they enjoy them? I can't answer for everybody, but I appreciate the companionship. I get pleasure from their pleasure - seeing them running and playing is great. I also enjoy working with the young one, just as much as she enjoys working with me: to manage to communicate a fairly complex concept across a species boundary is a very particular pleasure (for example, 'go back', which means turn 180 degrees and run until you find the retrieve). As a species, much of our development has been alongside dogs, so it's not surprising that so many people find dog ownership deeply rewarding. And dogs have been developed alongside people, and many, many dogs show every sign of loving to work with a human being.

How do you feel about farm animals?

@CarolDanvers

I used slavery as an example of how historical context doesn't always apply to the present day. Just because something, anything, happened in the past, is not a reason to continue with the practice of it. Of course dogs are not comparable to slaves. Slaves were/are human beings.

"Companionship' to me is being with someone who you can at least have a conversation with. Someone you can watch a movie or go out to dinner with. Share an experience in a meaningful way.
How is a dog a companion?

@flaxmeadow
I’m afraid you come across as PETA fan, who are very blinkered, Im sure it’s not difficult to understand why people enjoy having a cat or dog. You’re being deliberately obtuse to force an argument/push your agenda.