What Happend To Dogs?

[Lizmo]

With some threads lately and me thinking/talking to some people, I keep asking myself "What Happend To Dogs?"

We've created all these "short cuts" to dog owning - underground/electric fencing, automatic feeders, automatic waterers, harnesses, kibble, dog carries, things of this sort.

It seems like we create unessesary aggression in dogs by thinking they could act like that. Hundreds of years ago dogs were suppost to be able to get along with everyone and every dog. Most all dogs thrived on petting. Most were fed raw - left overs from a family meal. Now we feed kibble as an "easy, fast way". I believe words have a huge effect on things when spoken and I see more and more people saying "Oh she's such a b*tch" or "He's so scared of everything" If you say those things, you better believe they will start acting like that.

Most dogs got plenty of socializing by being the man or woman's car companion. You didnt have tons of people scared of the dog breeds they are scared of today. Kids were taught to respect the dog.

Dogs weren't thought of as kids or put ahead of people. Dogs were considered the least in families and were happy there. Now they are considered a child or better than people.

I don't know, maybe it's just me. We have so many problems with dogs now-a-days when back then, you didn't have Puppy Mills or tons of breeders. What changed?

Maybe thats why I'm so attracted the old style of a working dog that you see in things like James Herriot or something of that sort. Border Collies uterly devoted to it's Shepherd and working on the farm - being at the bottom of the list, but greatly cherished by it's Shepherd for the work it does.

 

[PixieSticksandTricks]

I don't know. Lol

 

[Zoom]

See "Death of Common Sense"...

 

[RD]

Also see: Consumerism, Laziness, Anthropomorphism.

 

[Zoom]

Caveat: some changes in the way dogs are now viewed are positive, meaning that more people realize they do have emotions and mental needs without anthropomorphizing.

 

[oc_spirit]

It just falls into the way society has changed in many other aspect to. Just look at the difference between the average parent of yester-year and the average parent of today. Decades ago if someone had a hyper-active child they would simply send him out to play all day till it was supper time. By the time he sat down to eat, he was so worn out from hid day's adventure doing who knows what, he was more than willing to keep settled for the rest of the evening and night. If he would start getting too mischieious there was nothing wrong with a good hide tanning to smarten him up. Today, hyperactive children just get pumped with ritalin and who knows what other drugs. Its the "easier" way.

Jenn, I ask myself that very same question every day! I for one plan on sticking to many "old ways" of raising dogs throughout my life. Yes some developments are deffinately worth hanging on to (ie, the use of positive reinforcement in training) but for a lot of other things, the old ways are the way to go! Note that on average the dogs were hardier and healthier.

 

[Lizmo]

Note that on average the dogs were hardier and healthier.

I totally agree! I always have to laugh a bit when people are so caught up with giving dogs vitiams, powders, supplements, ect. I think people actually do MORE damamge to dogs by giving all these "extras" when really all they need is a good raw diet - which is really simple.

 

[Buddy'sParents]

I totally agree! I always have to laugh a bit when people are so caught up with giving dogs vitiams, powders, supplements, ect. I think people actually do MORE damamge to dogs by giving all these "extras" when really all they need is a good raw diet - which is really simple.

And what about people with dogs that have compromised immune systems and a top quality diet would never be enough? And I hardly think a raw diet is "simple"... it's a complex diet to understand and it has to be done right so that the dog receives essential nutrients.

 

[Dekka]

Ask insurance agencies..

And I here its not as bad in other countries as it is here and in the US

 

[Gempress]

Hundreds of years ago dogs were suppost to be able to get along with everyone and every dog. Most all dogs thrived on petting. Most were fed raw - left overs from a family meal. Now we feed kibble as an "easy, fast way".

Maybe thats why I'm so attracted the old style of a working dog that you see in things like James Herriot or something of that sort. Border Collies uterly devoted to it's Shepherd and working on the farm - being at the bottom of the list, but greatly cherished by it's Shepherd for the work it does.

(I'm not trying to pick on you!)

I think you have a very romanticized view of the domestic dog's past. The reason dogs got along with everyone was because, while "good dogs" were loved, unsuitable dogs were shot or otherwise destroyed. Dogs were expendable. There was no spaying/neutering, so unwanted litters were drowned. Dog didn't follow the scent? Shoot him. Dog chased livestock? Shoot him. You get the idea.

And not all dogs got along with everyone or every dog. If you read older books, you see plenty of instances about dog aggression, human aggression and other such traits. They just weren't frowned upon as much---just considered "a dog being a dog."

In reading up on catahoula history, I found an interesting article online about the old practice of "lining", used to determine good hunting dogs. A litter of six-month old pups was brought to a place where a scent trail had been laid. The owner drew a line in the dirt, and turned the pack loose. The first two pups to cross the line were shot--they didn't have the drive to stay with the pack. Then the owner waited for the pups to return. The first two pups to return and cross back over the line were also shot---they didn't have the drive to pursue the game long enough. The remaining pups were considered potential hunting prospects and trained.

There are people today who have the same ideas about dogs, mainly in rural areas. Keep the dogs that fit in, kill the ones that don't. And we often view that with horror.

But I do agree that it's interesting how dog ownership has changed over the years.

 

[smkie]

With some threads lately and me thinking/talking to some people, I keep asking myself "What Happend To Dogs?"

We've created all these "short cuts" to dog owning - underground/electric fencing, automatic feeders, automatic waterers, harnesses, kibble, dog carries, things of this sort.

It seems like we create unessesary aggression in dogs by thinking they could act like that. Hundreds of years ago dogs were suppost to be able to get along with everyone and every dog. Most all dogs thrived on petting. Most were fed raw - left overs from a family meal. Now we feed kibble as an "easy, fast way". I believe words have a huge effect on things when spoken and I see more and more people saying "Oh she's such a b*tch" or "He's so scared of everything" If you say those things, you better believe they will start acting like that.

Most dogs got plenty of socializing by being the man or woman's car companion. You didnt have tons of people scared of the dog breeds they are scared of today. Kids were taught to respect the dog.

Dogs weren't thought of as kids or put ahead of people. Dogs were considered the least in families and were happy there. Now they are considered a child or better than people.

I don't know, maybe it's just me. We have so many problems with dogs now-a-days when back then, you didn't have Puppy Mills or tons of breeders. What changed?

Maybe thats why I'm so attracted the old style of a working dog that you see in things like James Herriot or something of that sort. Border Collies uterly devoted to it's Shepherd and working on the farm - being at the bottom of the list, but greatly cherished by it's Shepherd for the work it does.

kinda the same things we are having problems with ourselves..we are the creature of convenience and the master of our own fate. We juts take the dogs along with us.

 

[Giny]

And one hundred years ago the average age of a dog was 7 years old.....

 

[Lilavati]

What happened to dogs? Why, the same thing that has happened to children . . . think about it

Its fear and the need for control.

 

[SizzleDog]

No puppy mills? I beg to differ. There were HUGE commercial kennels back in the day - many of the show "breeders" had upwards of 300 dogs, often times more. Multiple breeds, etc. The "kennels" back then were real kennels - lots and lots of dogs, hired help to care for the dogs, etc.

So no, perhaps there weren't puppy mills in the modern sense of the word, but there *were* large scale breeding operations.

My mom had four GSDs, three GSD/Collie mixes, three Dachshunds, a Dalmatian, and a Siamese cat when she was growing up. Even in the city, it was commonplace to let the dogs out to run - there were PACKS of dogs in the neighborhood, all owned and fed by the residents. Mom said they were very happy dogs... but one of the GSDs disappeared, three of the other dogs were hit by cars, a few had litters (no spay/neuter), and one of the GSD/collie mixes was "adopted" by another family a few blocks away because she wasn't wearing a collar and the kids wanted to keep her.

Ah the good old days...

 

[jess2416]

(I'm not trying to pick on you!)

I think you have a very romanticized view of the domestic dog's past. The reason dogs got along with everyone was because, while "good dogs" were loved, unsuitable dogs were shot or otherwise destroyed. Dogs were expendable. There was no spaying/neutering, so unwanted litters were drowned. Dog didn't follow the scent? Shoot him. Dog chased livestock? Shoot him. You get the idea.

And not all dogs got along with everyone or every dog. If you read older books, you see plenty of instances about dog aggression, human aggression and other such traits. They just weren't frowned upon as much---just considered "a dog being a dog."

In reading up on catahoula history, I found an interesting article online about the old practice of "lining", used to determine good hunting dogs. A litter of six-month old pups was brought to a place where a scent trail had been laid. The owner drew a line in the dirt, and turned the pack loose. The first two pups to cross the line were shot--they didn't have the drive to stay with the pack. Then the owner waited for the pups to return. The first two pups to return and cross back over the line were also shot---they didn't have the drive to pursue the game long enough. The remaining pups were considered potential hunting prospects and trained.

There are people today who have the same ideas about dogs, mainly in rural areas. Keep the dogs that fit in, kill the ones that don't. And we often view that with horror.

But I do agree that it's interesting how dog ownership has changed over the years.

Agreed..

 

[ACooper]

(I'm not trying to pick on you!)

I think you have a very romanticized view of the domestic dog's past. The reason dogs got along with everyone was because, while "good dogs" were loved, unsuitable dogs were shot or otherwise destroyed. Dogs were expendable. There was no spaying/neutering, so unwanted litters were drowned. Dog didn't follow the scent? Shoot him. Dog chased livestock? Shoot him. You get the idea.

And not all dogs got along with everyone or every dog. If you read older books, you see plenty of instances about dog aggression, human aggression and other such traits. They just weren't frowned upon as much---just considered "a dog being a dog."

In reading up on catahoula history, I found an interesting article online about the old practice of "lining", used to determine good hunting dogs. A litter of six-month old pups was brought to a place where a scent trail had been laid. The owner drew a line in the dirt, and turned the pack loose. The first two pups to cross the line were shot--they didn't have the drive to stay with the pack. Then the owner waited for the pups to return. The first two pups to return and cross back over the line were also shot---they didn't have the drive to pursue the game long enough. The remaining pups were considered potential hunting prospects and trained.

There are people today who have the same ideas about dogs, mainly in rural areas. Keep the dogs that fit in, kill the ones that don't. And we often view that with horror.

But I do agree that it's interesting how dog ownership has changed over the years.

Very good post Gemp. I agree.

I also want to add that the number of people who actually treat their dogs AS children or BETTER than people are pretty small and have ALWAYS been around.

Also the number of people who suppliment with vitamins and powders of the like are EXTREMELY small. Talk to a thousand dog owners off the street and mention adding vitamins/suppliment powder and they will be like EVEN very good dog owners are not really into all that supplimenting........I feed my dogs VERY well with a mix of homecooked and kibble and I don't suppliment with any thing along those lines. Tried fish oil once and didn't see any results or difference so I don't even do that anymore.

I DO use fruits/veggies/dairy/fish and things like that in their diet..........honestly MOST average people think of me as a fanatic, LOL

 

[Debi]

I probably don't understand the original question. what happened to dogs? well...uh..nothing as far as I can see. my dogs are great companions, I adore them. yet..do they take the place of children..no. are they intensely spoiled...no. they are dogs..pets. lovely creatures. hardly considered 'above people'. yet...they are dogs...as such they are fun, loving beings. living beings worth great care, if you so choose to own one. I don't think dogs were supposed to get along with everyone and every animal years ago. why put that burden on them? what's that about? they're dogs. they instinctively go after chickens..they sometimes don't love 'everyone'. big deal. they're dogs. to each of us that has them...they may mean 'more'. they may mean the world. but they're dogs. and I have no clue as to what you mean when you ask 'what happened to them?'. they are simply dogs...then and now. it's how each of us perceive them that may have changed, but they haven't changed one bit.

 

[Lizmo]

*** In no way am I trying to be angry here ***

Also the number of people who suppliment with vitamins and powders of the like are EXTREMELY small.

Then why are there so many threads on HERE about that?

I hope my original post didn't come across to some as EVERYINTHG was perfect back then, in no way was I trying to say that. hehe.

And I hardly think a raw diet is "simple"... it's a complex diet to understand and it has to be done right so that the dog receives essential nutrients.

Why were so many dogs healthier and stronger back then? If it's really hard to learn how to do a proper raw diet why did so many dogs thrive on "left overs" from the family meal? I see, almost all, dogs that have terrible coats, teeth, breath, ect. What are they fed? Kibble from the grocery store.

Dog chased livestock? Shoot him. You get the idea.

Uhm, that still happens today.

What happened to dogs? Why, the same thing that has happened to children . . . think about it

Its fear and the need for control.

I'd really like to know what you mean be this.

 

[ACooper]

Then why are there so many threads on HERE about that?

Well Lizmo even if EVERY Chaz member (all 16000 +) supplimented, which is not even close to the case, THAT would STILL be a tiny number when compared to dog owners out there.

As I said before, and I think most of us have experienced it....in our daily lives most of the pet owners we know personally think of us as nearly fanatics because we DO as much for our dogs as we do.

And for what it's worth..........I didn't take ANY of your posts as angry or off key

 

[Bahamutt99]

In a way its good that people have increased the value of owning a dog. It makes it harder for anti-pet laws to get passed.