Bias and hypocricy of views

I don't think the OP cares about pet animals, because as he says, for breeding purposes they might as well not exist.

What he's (she?) is saying is that breeding dogs should be kept only by working people. I completely agree. And preferably, from my point of view anyways, I would rather have people that need the dog for something first, and then care about the breed, then someone who cares about the breed first and then works them so they can say they do. For instance, a person who owned a cattle ranch that needed protecting from people and animals, needed rogue cattle caught, might have presa canarios. And to me, that is the sort of place that should be breeding them. Not someone who keeps them as housepets and gets them to chase after a man in a suit with some sort of baton. Or, another way of putting it is, I wouldn't buy a livestock guardian dog from someone who had them in their house and said "yes, but, they like the outdoors and will sleep out there" and "yes, when they're around sheep they're very gentle with them" and "yes, he's really aggressive towards new dogs on the property." The components might be there but that still doesn't mean it will protect sheep. To me that just doesn't cut it. Or a sighthound for hunting from a breeder that lure courses 3 times a week. I would much rather have a German Shepherd from police K9 lines than purely Schutzhund lines.

Reflecting on that, I guess what lots of my problem is that sport doesn't test gritiness, which is integral to many working breeds. Speculative statements like "of course this dog will protect me, he'd die for me!!!" kinda bother me. I don't think most dogs would die for their owners, if they could help it- there's only one breed that has been bred to stay in a fight despite being exhausted, losing and getting the chance to quit, and it isn't typically used in protection. When someone "knows" that their dog will do something beyond what they've seen with their own eyes, and they use that as justification for breeding, the whole thing goes downhill, quickly.

Now, not all dogs are working dogs so of course it doesn't apply to all. And I'm not saying anything about the practicallity of having all breeders really work their dogs, but that would be ideal IMO.

He does have some good points though. Look at how much money people are spending at the vets these days and the dogs are still living shorter lifespans than their counterparts half a century ago.

Look at all the issues with bulldogs, bassets, doxies, pugs, etc. Bulldogs aren't supposed to be outside for more than 15 minutes if the temperature is above 70 or below 30. Bassets have horribly deformed legs but it's "ok"? These dogs used to be able to work and now they need a fairly significant amount of human intervention just to keep from going extinct. Look at Labs; they were supposed to be dogs that could retrieve all day long and now the vast majority either have no retrieving instinct, not enough brains to be able to hold still and alert for hours in a blind or are so fat, excuse me, "stocky" that they're wheezing after two fetches and have massive issues with elbows and hips because of it.

I don't have a problem with 'pet' owners for the most part; at this point in my life that's all Sawyer is...he goes everywhere with me and things like that, but I haven't had him stock yet. But he's also not breeding stock. It's the people that are breeding strictly for show and/or strictly pet homes, placing coat, an ever changing idea of what the ideal "conformation" above all else and breeding out instinct so more "average" pet owners can get their hands on dogs they have no business owning in the first place.

i don't necessarily see the correlations = causation in many cases.

Did dogs live longer? or did many just die off earlier? is it due to kibble, vs raw. Is it due to the fact dogs used to be able to roam and were better stimulated?

There are too many variables to say anything really.

As much as I am a fan of working dogs.. I can not respect someone who lets dogs die due to things like snake bites etc. Someone who says all natural is best (to the point of letting dogs die) but then feeds kibble. etc etc.

I am not offended... just finding all the contradictions amusing.

I'm the opposite of the theory. I have an intact dog, yet I am obese. How'd that happen?

hmm Dan... i have less intact dogs than ever but am getting smaller (see my siggy)... I now only have 3 intact dogs !!!

That's exactly how I ended up with Filas. I was living on a beef cattle farm and we needed something that could herd and was also capable of making the overly large and brazen coyotes realize that their life spans might be shortened if they ventured into the pasture, as well as keeping humans off the property.

It was my own stubbornness and refusal to accept traditional parameters that allowed me to let my Filas realize more of their potential as dogs who can move about in the modern world, still doing what they do, being superlative guardians and consummate companions while still retaining all of their traditional capabilities -- physical and mental -- and exercising those roles in non-traditional ways.

That, I feel strongly, is part of what we must be willing to do if we're going to keep these breeds we love viable and vital. We can't circumscribe them -- limit them -- to only their traditional "tasks." They are capable of so much more, if we'll give them the chance.

THE op doesn't care at all about animals at all if he lets them die an unnecessary death. HE is responsible for their care if they are domesticated...period. He is responsible for their pain and the waste. Can You imagine if i had let Victor die of his bee sting last week? Shakes head in wonder. I believe here we have laws against neglect.

Maybe if I neuter Gunnar I'll drop a few lbs. Or maybe the karma from Bruzer and Daisy being fixed is overriding the machismo of Gunnar? Say it isn't so!

I have one altered one intact.. I managed to drop 10 pounds regained 2 and now I'm stuck at 8 lost. Wonder if it's my altered dog or my intact dog causing me to be stuck at this weight

Lol they must be balancing you guys out

I never said the op doest have SOME good points...
BUT all this op has given from the start is lectures about how any dog that doesn't hunt is not worhy of life ect.
I do agree that confirmation only events have destroyed many breeds, personally I also feel that a dog bred to do a specific task ie go to ground SHoULD have the drive and abilty to still perform that task...i feel that those showin. Confirmation particularly oN a working breed should have further testing to prove they are more than simply pretty by some ever changing breed standard...
But the issue her is the op seems completly uninterested in others opinions and states so in such a way hlthat it comes off as down right rude...particularly to those of us wib smaller dogs who all to often hear our dogs referee to as rodents, useless, frou frou...

I have the feeling what Ufimych is aiming at is the breeds that were created and bred for centuries to be excellent hunters, guarders, herders, etc and now are nothing more than oversized lapdogs with nothing remaining of their background except physical resemblence and a few quirks that are ill-suited to the average owner.

There really isn't anything prettier than seeing a dog do the job it was originally intended for.

As far as dogs and owners being fat and lazy, again, don't think he was aiming so much at the people here on this board as the general public. Lord knows we've ranted often enough about how people are being so conditioned to seeing fat dogs that they cry neglect and starvation when faced with a dog of a proper weight. Same goes for the general public...how many times have we had huge threads about the sad state of obesity in this country due to lack of exercise and proper diet?

People are taking what the OP is saying far too personally, I think. Chaz is not a board of average pet owners for the most part. We're here because we're dog people...and there IS a distinct difference.

but at the same time, the world has changed tremendously. there simply isn't call or need for many dogs to be hunters, guarders, or herders. some yes, but not nearly the need there was years ago. and much of that hunting and herding and protection work has become sport more than necessity. so what are dogs to do when there is no call for them to be out running in a field all day?

i dunno, i'm very torn on the subject. the reality is that most pet owners don't want a dog with a lot of drive and energy and need for serious work. should dog breeds change to suit their lesser needs? i can't say that *i* want that. a dumbed down version of the dogs i love doesn't excite me at all. but at the same time, i can see why them existing is necessary.

You know, even after skipping through these 6 pages, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the fundamental difference between a dog and a human.

Dogs are not sentient. They really couldn't care less whether they are neutered or not.

Zoom actually, most people would laugh at the OP. People here are offended because the OP is talking to people who treat their dog like family. The average dog owner doesn't... and either they're too lazy to neuter or don't want to pay for it, or they do it for the convenience of not having to deal with heats or having a male spray or trying to escape all the time. I don't see any problem with it.

I think this poster is nothing more than a troll trying to get everyone all riled up. His rude ways won't be changed anymore than any of ours. SI think it should be dropped and he ignored. He will let it go then, when he gets no more responses.

Dogs are sentient, they have feelings and emotions. They just aren't sapient, as in intelligent and self-aware in the sense that humans are. Those words are misused a lot, thanks to sci-fi conventions that came about when animals were presumed to be automotons.

However, the point is correct, I don't think the dog cares if they are fixed or not . . . indeed, considering they have no ego to speak of, its probably a relief. Sarama was not happy when she was in heat. I didn't know Docket before he was fixed, but I suspect it must be easier to live without all those powerful urges.

I think the "average dog owner" spays or neuters their dog because, primarily, they are supposed to. Lets not conflate "average" with "lowest common denomenator." At least in this area, most people s/n, unless they are intending to breed or are bad owners. This is a mistake a lot of ARistas make . . . they assume that average pet owners are bad ones . . . my experience is that average pet owners are not up to my standards, but they do ok. And at least here, they s/n. To be sure, they probably don't want the nuisence of an intact animal, but s/n animals are now the norm.

My neutered male is far from lazy. He is THE most driven and intense animal I have ever owned and I have had border collies my whole life so that is saying something. I fail to see how me altering my pets makes them or me fat or lazy. Meh, who cares anyway. I am not here to please some neglectful dog owner.

for me...its more a case of i truly cannot stant hypocrites...
and here we have a poster calling many of US on this board biased and hypocryits (partially based on the fact that wed get our dogs spayed and netuered but wouldnt do it to ourselves (and many here have had their tubes tied, vasectomies (which arnt quite as extreem) and even hysterectomies, which are the same as a full spay)
however the op then does NOT read the responces and shows the exact same biased and hypocrisy as they are claming we have.

ive not yet read a real responmce from this op that has any kind of even acnowledgement that other people are allowed to have their own opionons, that hes even READ the responces even, each reply is to simply state that dogs that live inside (and the op has stated in previous threads in fewer words that they feel companion dogs are pointless because they dont have a real job...) is not a real dog, its frou frou and the people keeping that dog would be better to kill it tham live such a miserable life.

that to me is NOT what this forum is about.
expressing an opinion is one thing...
but the op has clearly stated they would rather let nature take its course...let a dog DIE before taking it to the vets because thats what life is about, if the dog cant survive the way the op thinks EVERY dog should live it has no right being alive and in this world.

we all have our different veiws on how a dog should be kept, but can anyone on this board other than the op truly say they would sit back and watch their dog die simply because its the natural thing to do? could you sit back after a snake bite, seeing your dog in agony and NOT call the vet?

as ive stated before, i personally dont feel the dog has to be seen by a vet for every little thing. i only titer every 3 years, heck my dogs dont even get their rabies vacination thanks to a severe allergic reaction in both the cresties...
they do NOT go for an anual check up ect...
they go in for emergencies...
if/when i do actually have a litter comming they go in before hand for an xray...i like to have an aproximate number to expect so i know if theres any problems...
if there REALY sick...they go to the vet...ect
i have no problems treating an uset tummy with a bit of pepto or pumpkin, no issues waiting to see if a limp is just a limp or if its a persistent problem that needs seeing...
BUT when they NEED to they see a vet, plain and simply...

i NEVER want to be the kind of owner that would rather let their dog suffer because thats "natures way"

and im one of those nature loving crazy pagans who belive the natural way of life is amazing....

but no...
if this had been many newbies that come to the board and say "my dog got bitten by a snake should i take it to the vets?" there would be a resounding YES...

the op came onto the board and actually said in one of the first pages of the first post ever that his dogs are essentially so healthy they DONT have to see a vet EVEN FOR SNAKE BITES...

it bewilders me...

Lilavati, it's what I meant by the average dog owner... most of them neuter because it's convenient and easier to deal with a neutered pet. I didn't mean it in a negative way. The part that is too lazy/doesn't care etc are the 'lowest common denominator' I'd guess.

opcorn:

Relax everyone.
I think the best way to have
a nice and respectful debate
is to keep emotions out of it.

that works if it is a debate... there is no debate here..