# Livestock vs. fur kids...what is a working dog?



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Money quote from Jeff last last night:



> This is a (one of) fundamental reason why US dogs suck. It is a dog, not a fur kid, or any one of the amazingly stupid "family" type descriptions I see. It is basically livestock. If they are weak, well, you put them to sleep. Only the strong should make it and the weak weeded out. We (US) breed some of the most piss weak dogs I have ever seen, and then are proud of the fact that we are "Keeping this amazing breed working" or some inane BS like that. Makes me want to vomit.
> 
> God forbid they institute breed wardens in this country. No one would be allowed to breed.


This had me thinking all the way into work. How you all view working dogs affects everything about them: where they sleep, how much you miss them, what emotional bonds you let yourself form. On one scale, you have a guy like David Frost who has trained more dogs than I have seen in my entire life, on another, well, somebody like me.  But the different viewpoints we have of the dogs--this is something that protects me, this is something that works for me, this is something that makes me happy...really tend to skew what's acceptable and what's not to us (cf. culling, table training, prongs, avoidance training, motivational training, whatever). There are people like Al Reanto who has a unique and really naturalistic way (at least to me) of viewing and training his PPDs, they you have a perspective like Jeff offers above (which, in and of itself, is just a viewpoint but has a lot of implications for what would and would not be tolerable to do to "better the breed.")

So...

1. Is a *working* dog a fur kid, a companion, a commodity, or livestock?

2. How do you think your viewpoint affects your training with your animal?

3. Do you think your viewpoints are sustainable/universal (i.e., if everybody acted like you, what would the breed look like?)

And stuff like this. I don't know, have fun with it, I'm having fun thinking about it...and again, I think this is one of those fundamental things that really affects how we interpret everything else about dog work.

Hopefully this will be interesting. Nothing I have posted here should be taken as a "shot" on one of your respective beliefs. I'm neutral. :wink:


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

While I have no problem with a true working dog not being integrated into a family situation, I do not view them as livestock. They have thoughts and feelings; dogs are far superior to cows. 

I do not believe in indiscriminate breeding. I have an SV papered dog who will probably NEVER be bred -- unless of course I feel there's some exceptional reason to do it. There are plenty of dogs out there better at working than he is; those are those ones who ought to sire litters. Achilles hasn't proven himself yet, and I take on a "guilty until proven innocent" standpoint. 

As for my own dogs: they are part of my family. They are pets first, working dogs second (and we do sport). They aren't allowed to sleep with me or get on my furniture, but they are my furkids. I love them, will mourn their deaths, and will always consider them a member of the family. I'm not sure how it affects their training; I consider a bite trained dog to be safer than the average pet. Until the Monumental Move we were training heavily in SchH; since January we've done nothing. If anything, sport has made our dog more suitable to cohabitate with my family.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Although I'm not into the furkid thing, my dogs have always been a part of the family. Working terriers have been/are house dogs. 
My GSD is always with me. Doesn't matter if it's training, working on a rehab house or simply going to the post office. 
I think that has created a better bond, connection, or whatever you want to call it.
The're not my kids. I don't view them as kids. I don't treat them as kids. but I've sure as hell cried over the loss of each and every one of them.
Could be that I'm just a big wuss! :lol:


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Except of my main **** kitten and my old IPO dog I don´t have pets. 

The others are all working dogs, they´re treated differently from day 1 (at birth or when the came to live here). They´re kenneled, they´re totally free to do their own thing till they´re about 8mo-1 yr. The only thing they learn beforethat time is their name and "hier" (come). I potty train them and take them to different places. I am not a cute puppy lover..i like them with others or for my own till 7 weeks and after 8 mo.

I want them to be king of the world when I start working with them, independent, no puppy anymore (young dog), can take some pressure, and couldn´t be scared...

They aren´t really livestock to me, but certainly AREN´T a fur-child like- co-living in the house pets. They are working dogs...im strongly bonded (cause you couldnt train very well..), love them, sometimes hate them but just...working dogs


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Actually, I find that a very interesting question. As a trainer and manager of a good sized program (40+ dogs), I've found I am far removed from the attachment that handlers may have. I'm the one that has to be objective over whether or not a dog will make it through training, be retired or even euthanized. I've found that it's much easier for me to make the decision objectively because I'm not "attached" to the animal as far as a relationship. I often view the dogs we have as a piece of equipment (isn't that a sad note). If it's not working right, can I fix it. If I can fix it, do I need to worry about it "breaking" again. When a dog is ill, how much do I want to spend to get it well. As dogs begin to debilitate with age, when do I consider retiring them. Rarely are the decisions popular with the handler, but in reality what ever is done has to be for the good of the program. It's like making a decision on an automobile, if it's going to cost me more to maintain it, than it would to replace it, then I have to replace it. That's my perspective on working dogs. They are scheduled to work, it's not a matter of, well, we can do it another day. This didn't necessarily come easy for me. I didn't begin my career in canine as a trainer/manager, I was a handler for many years. Of course I thought the trainer/manager was a cold hearted SOB, but I can see now the decisions he was required to make.

DFrost


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2006)

Jeff!!! :lol: If I just wait long enough, he says all the obnoxiously true things I want to say...but figure I piss people off enough as it is :twisted: . Hilarious!

I think there are certain words that embody what is wrong with "working dogs" today, and if "FUR-KID" doesn't epitomize it all, well, then I don't know what does. They're DOGS. It is unfair to them to treat them as if they're anything other than what they are. They, as DOGS, have their own specific needs, abilities, and qualities. Calling them "fur-kids" is insulting. They're not children with hair disorders. If they're viewed as such it's fairly certain that they (and their handlers) will never have the opportunity to experience how powerful and unique the human/canine bond can be...


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

It is the same for my husband David, he is manager/trainer/adminstrator of 15 dogs on a department.

As an example for my feelings, I recently placed a female in a home where she could be a pet and a securitydog. In return for 2 more litters with her. She was my little girl, but her KNPV work wasn´t good enough for my standard (circumstances before we had her, she´s a own bred dog). She´s better of there, than only be in a kennel here and be bred twice. I miss her, but I think her life is better for her now.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:dogs are far superior to cows. 

In what way? I do not see this at all. More interesting maybe, but thats about it. Can't kill a dog and eat for 6 months. Dogs are nearly useless, except from the interesting viewpoint unless maybe they are goood working dogs. Most dogs waste air.  

Quote: 

The others are all working dogs, they´re treated differently from day 1 (at birth or when the came to live here). They´re kenneled, they´re totally free to do their own thing till they´re about 8mo-1 yr. The only thing they learn beforethat time is their name and "hier" (come). I potty train them and take them to different places. I am not a cute puppy lover..i like them with others or for my own till 7 weeks and after 8 mo. 

I want them to be king of the world when I start working with them, independent, no puppy anymore (young dog), can take some pressure, and couldn´t be scared... 

They aren´t really livestock to me, but certainly AREN´T a fur-child like- co-living in the house pets. They are working dogs...im strongly bonded (cause you couldnt train very well..), love them, sometimes hate them but just...working dogs


Notice the difference when you get overseas? Still wondering?



NOT PICKING ON YOU, but this is a common view point.

Quote:I do not believe in indiscriminate breeding. I have an SV papered dog who will probably NEVER be bred -- unless of course I feel there's some exceptional reason to do it. There are plenty of dogs out there better at working than he is; those are those ones who ought to sire litters. Achilles hasn't proven himself yet, and I take on a "guilty until proven innocent" standpoint. 


Probably never be bred, SV papers, unless of course, blah blah blah.

I have never had a doubt about a stud dog raised by me. They are rediculously obvious.

Again, not slamming, but the view points are extremely common. I have heard them almost word for word like the quote posted above many many times.


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

I had posted this under another thread, and I'm copying and pasting it here:




Kristen Cabe said:


> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> > we seem to want to make our dogs family members and the dutch believe their dogs are dogs
> ...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Jenni, do you piss people off in real life, or just here in the ether world?

I find that people get pissed, but I can see that they won't say anything. I prefer the people that get pissed. At least they are interesting.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Dogs are unique from all other creatures.They are not livestock and they are not wolves.

Calling a dog a "furkid" disrespects both the dog and the children.They are dogs and they know they are not people.If you cant give a dog the respect he deserves then you shouldnt own one.

When you confuse dogs in this way you limit the capabilities of both the dog and of your own ability as a handler.Dogs are capable of performing tasks we as humans cannot.WE as humans are capable of doing things dogs cannot.There is a natural bond between dogs and man.By strenghtening this natural bond we can start to become a team and many things are possible that would not be otherwise."fur mommies" and "skinkids" weaken this relationship and do not reflect positively on you own level of common sense.JMO

Greg


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

So Jeff...just for the sake of discussion...you'd said in an earlier discussion (I thought) that you didn't breed because you didn't like culling...why is that? I apologize if you did NOT say that, by the way, I just thought I remembered that.

[all these posts in so short a time! Awesome, I figured this would be a good topic...]

And David...I don't think it's wrong (or "sad") at all for MWDs and PSDs to be viewed as equipment. They're used for entirely different purposes than anything else. Makes total sense to me that we would not give them the same "rights" or "sympathy" we'd give a pet, service companion, or sport dog. Reality is funny that way, IMHO.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Cows are worth way more than dog Kristen. $$$ is king. Just because you paid a lot of money for a dog doesn't mean he is worth the amount paid. Cows you usually make money off of. Cows have personalities, and can be trained. No one wants to catch the cow in the courage test.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Woody, here is a good way to see if you like culling. Find a new litter of puppies. select the biggest fattest ones. Now, simply twist the heads of the rest till you hear a slight snap. They go still at this point. Wrap them in newspaper and throw them in the dumpster. Still wish you asked such a question????? Couldn't be more obvious where the dislike comes from.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

I treat my dogs according to their personality. Cujo's a big baby, Lÿka's a tough lil bitch. Their behavior dictates my response... I'm tough but fair, I would treat my kids much the same way as I treat my dogs, but obviously not exactly the same, however much I wish it were legal to crate kids, you just can't do that  :lol: My dogs are here to stay till death do us part, I could never sell my own dog to someone. I would need to completely condition myself to sell a litter of puppies to not get attached to them, n I would do what Selena does -- keep the puppies located near me, I wouldn't feel comfortable sending one of my pups off to Utah and never hearing anything about them again. I used to update Cujo's breeder on how Cujo was doing, but he seems to have lost any of the enthusiasm or interest he showed when I first got Cujo... so I stopped updating them. I intend on keeping Lÿka's breeder up to date on how she's doing because I truly believe they care about what happens to their pups.

I was offered to handle a dog for my trainer, but I don't have the space to do so.... he's an awesome dog, if I wanted an adult GSD, I would buy that dog, but I know that if I start working with the dog I'll get attached n wanna keep him, n it'll cost me $5000 lol.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Woody, here is a good way to see if you like culling. Find a new litter of puppies. select the biggest fattest ones. Now, simply twist the heads of the rest till you hear a slight snap. They go still at this point. Wrap them in newspaper and throw them in the dumpster. Still wish you asked such a question????? Couldn't be more obvious where the dislike comes from.


It's just livestock, man. Are you one of those types that can buy packaged meat all day long and never kill the cow?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I have cracked cows in the head with a sledgehammer many times. Makes no difference to me, they are quite tasty. Dogs have no value this way.

Quote:Livestock: Domestic animals, such as cattle or horses, raised for use or for profit, especially on a farm; food animals; slaughter animals; also referred to as stock.

Connie posted this on the original thread. Pay close attention to the raised for use or for profit.

There are more dogs born for profit than anything else. They are livestock.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I have cracked cows in the head with a sledgehammer many times. Makes no difference to me, they are quite tasty. Dogs have no value this way.
> 
> Quote:Livestock: Domestic animals, such as cattle or horses, raised for use or for profit, especially on a farm; food animals; slaughter animals; also referred to as stock.
> 
> ...


So you want to "better the breed' but prefer someone else do the less palatable stuff? You're paying for someone to cull.

Dog might not taste bad, I've never had it. Only carnivores I have had are bear, shark, alligator, snake (you too!). Bear jerky actually tastes like $hit to me and I think bear hunting is cowardly, but that's another point.

So are you saying that you like killing cows because you can eat them, or you simply don't like culling puppies because you (choose) not to eat them?


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Jeff hate to dissapoint you, but there are also a lot of sportpeople who threat their dog the same..more IPO people though. Their main reason for having a dog is first a pet, and second to work/sport with them.

My only reason is working..that makes a heck of a difference.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

How is it that I like killing cows???? Have you ever done the same? Or is this that retorical Woody thing were you live vicariously through those that do???? How did you manage to have children with this personality??? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Selena, I am not disappointed at all. I live here in the states where polls state that the dog is a member of the family. You are probably the least ruthless person I know overseas. It is not a bad thing to like your dog, it just gets sooooooo "F"in carried away over here. Besides, I was really getting board with the STUPID table training discussion. I felt the need to amuse Jenni, and get Woody all worked up.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> How did you manage to have children with this personality??? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


Because I'm awfully persuasive and I win a lot of arguments. Like this one so far. Ladies love it. 

So like I was saying...you are fine with killing livestock for food but not with killing puppies for the betterment of the breed. But you are fine with paying others to cull for you. I'm just wondering where that distaste for popping puppy necks from from...and my point is that I think you are putting a value on dogs beyond what I would call a "dogs as commodity" mindset you started off when you equated them with livestock.


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Cows are worth way more than dog Kristen. $$$ is king. Just because you paid a lot of money for a dog doesn't mean he is worth the amount paid. Cows you usually make money off of. Cows have personalities, and can be trained. No one wants to catch the cow in the courage test.


Yes, you are absolutely right (and I am not making the same mistake that Stacia did - you do NOT have permission to use this statement in future posts! :lol. Cows ARE worth more money than dogs, but they have to be killed first. how much is a dead dog worth? The point I was trying to make was not comparing worth of a cow to worth of a dog; any idiot knows that you can get more for a cow than for a dog. The point I was trying to make was that we do not treat our dogs the same way we treat our livestock intended for human consumption, so they should not be classified as such.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:Yes, you are absolutely right (and I am not making the same mistake that Stacia did - you do NOT have permission to use this statement in future posts! ) 

Luckily, it makes no difference to me. \/ 

Quote:Because I'm awfully persuasive and I win a lot of arguments. Like this one so far. Ladies love it. 

What arguement? The fact that I do not like killing things anymore does not make your arguement. Especially since I really doubt you have killed more than insects. There is always one too many.

As far as women loving your argueing? WTF do I know? Sure I can get them naked, thats easy, it's after and you have to talk to them. Not so easy. They seem so comfortable talking about nothing, or shoes, same thing.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Although I'm not into the furkid thing, my dogs have always been a part of the family. Working terriers have been/are house dogs.
> My GSD is always with me. Doesn't matter if it's training, working on a rehab house or simply going to the post office.
> I think that has created a better bond, connection, or whatever you want to call it.
> The're not my kids. I don't view them as kids. I don't treat them as kids. but I've sure as hell cried over the loss of each and every one of them.
> Could be that I'm just a big wuss! :lol:


Bob saved me loads of typing. My feelings in a nutshell.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jenni Williams said:


> J....I think there are certain words that embody what is wrong with "working dogs" today, and if "FUR-KID" doesn't epitomize it all, well, then I don't know what does. They're DOGS. It is unfair to them to treat them as if they're anything other than what they are. ...


Then.......

:twisted: :twisted: 

Why are tiny little dogs who don't have a job OK to treat differently?


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

I guess i don't get it. My dogs live in my house and we have fun training etc. I'm well aware that they're dogs but they certainly make my life nicer and add a component that other animals don't. If you look into a cows eyes then look into a dogs eyes and you don't see the difference, well, you'll just never see the difference. If someone intentionally hurt my dogs they would pay a heavy price, so, no they're not furkids but they're not livestock either......


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2006)

Oh Jeff, I'm afraid I do it in real life even worse... :twisted: . I've had this conversation with people about those very terms though, and how they have the ability to nauseate me beyond belief. Call me cold-hearted, yada yada, but I can't stand it. Or the table discussion anymore for that matter...  . I see these poor pet dogs who are fat, lazy, spoiled, and are the precious "fur-kids" of people who don't deserve to have a dog. They think I'm mean for saying you have to treat them like dogs, but I sure as hell would rather be my dog than theirs. I love my dogs, so I treat them as they deserve to be treated, and I respect them for just being dogs and possessing the unique qualities that only dogs possess. 

I think you're pissing people off with the "livestock" thing b/c most people don't really have too much one-on-one experience w/livestock. The term carries a negative connotation, which really, it shouldn't. It is what it is. It's possible to like a cow, as you said, as it is a horse or any other animal; the fact remains that they're raised for profit and purpose, for the most part. Just like dogs. :wink: While I don't like culling, and know I couldn't personally do it, I think that the problem with weakness in dogs today is the direct result of the hillbilly mindset that it's ok to breed Fluffy "because she's such a nice girl", aka, someone's fur kid. So, we get weak dogs by breeding weak dogs. Not rocket science by any means. Weak wolves don't survive. We're screwing with nature and playing God by forcing dogs who wouldn't make it on their own to not only survive, but thrive, and then actually BREEDING these genetic nightmares...ARGH!!! Not that I have an opinion on this or anything...  

Ok, that wasn't really on the topic, but that's what "fur kid" makes me think of...it's a term that someone with a real interest and respect for dogs wouldn't use.

Connie, I don't know what you mean. Did I say somewhere that it's ok to treat tiny dogs differently? I guarantee that Widget is not like any other chihuahua you'd meet in the suburbs. He's never been in a Gucci bag in his life. I think Widget would puke if I ever demeaned him by calling him a fur kid. I make jokes about his strange personality, but I treat Caleb and him equally. I give him less food, though.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jenni Williams said:


> ....Connie, I don't know what you mean. Did I say somewhere that it's ok to treat tiny dogs differently? I guarantee that Widget is not like any other chihuahua you'd meet in the suburbs. He's never been in a Gucci bag in his life. I think Widget would puke if I ever demeaned him by calling him a fur kid. I make jokes about his strange personality, but I treat Caleb and him equally. I give him less food, though.


I had a strong impression that Widget ran the house. So OK, not a furkid, but definitely not livestock.

But I was also joking. :lol:


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> The fact that I do not like killing things anymore does not make your arguement. Especially since I really doubt you have killed more than insects. There is always one too many.o


When you're ready to pick up the position and questions I set out to you, go back to page one. :twisted:


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

Greg Long said:


> Calling a dog a "furkid" disrespects both the dog and the children.They are dogs and they know they are not people.If you cant give a dog the respect he deserves then you shouldnt own one.


Egads. Let me just hand Achilles over to someone else, then. Apparently his life is in dire need of revamping due to his master's opinion of him as part of the family. Oh the shame.



> When you confuse dogs in this way you limit the capabilities of both the dog and of your own ability as a handler.Dogs are capable of performing tasks we as humans cannot.WE as humans are capable of doing things dogs cannot.There is a natural bond between dogs and man.By strenghtening this natural bond we can start to become a team and many things are possible that would not be otherwise."fur mommies" and "skinkids" weaken this relationship and do not reflect positively on you own level of common sense.JMO


I also have no common sense. Shoulda known...

BTW, there are a great deal of similiarities between the way I raise my dogs nad the way I raise my children. Both have set boundaries that I make clear, both are encouraged to do what I want through positive reinforcement adn sometimes correction, and both know their place within our family (pack) structure. You can call me sentimental, you can tell me I lack common sense, you can tell me that I'm inhibiting my dog. I don't care. I still love my dogs as if they were children. 

And you can try to describe it to me any way you like. I do have experience with cattle and they're nothing like dogs. There is a presence in a dog's mannerism; there is a loyalty, a willingness to please, a personality which makes for good companionship. Cows possess none of these things. They aren't happy to see you, they won't fetch anything, and they certainly aren't going to go run after the bad guy and take him down. There really isn't a comparison there IMO. Do I think all people need to have their dogs in their house? Of course not. And I completely understand the need for emotional dissonance in true working dogs; they are a commodity. But no one need attack me simply b/c my dogs are my best friends.

And Jeff: seriously, my dog is not a stud. He wasn't purchased for that purpose. All too often I hear "well my dog has AKC papers and blah blah blah." That's great. Mine has SV and he's not being considered for breeding. There are plenty of mediocre dogs out there..so why keep breeding them? What we need are truly great dogs. You get "pet quality" dogs out of every litter. My point was that if by some sheer stroke of luck my dog suddenly becomes some top competitor (and you're no danger of that) I might change my stance. But seriously...it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

WE GET WEAK DOGS BY BREEDING WEAK PEOPLE.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Andres Martin said:


> WE GET WEAK DOGS BY BREEDING WEAK PEOPLE.


Sounds like a tshirt design for the website--you should shoot that notion to the admin.


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

And it's my opinion that only someone who does not have children would be offended by thinking of a dog as a "furkid." I view dogs as 3-5 year old children; they require much of the same work and guidance. Seriously. And since I have three children ages 8, 5, and 2 and my livlihood depends upon advising families in pregnancy, birth, infant nutrition, newborn care, and parenting skills, I think I'm qualified to make that comparison.

And believe me: I wish the kids would peform for hot dogs. That would make my life 100% easier.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff said: There are more dogs born for profit than anything else. They are livestock. END QUOTE

The livestock definition said "raised for profit." 

I absolutely do not believe that more dogs are "raised" for profit than as pets.

Born to sell, yes .......... but more "raised for profit" than as pets -- I don't think so.


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Although I'm sure the discussion is off topic from the initial question, but here's my $0.05 anyways:
My first and second dogs were treated like children. I was ignorant to the fact that children truley change who you are to the core. I was quoted many times saying that I treat and love my dogs like children. However, after having Shane, I know this isn't my way. For Shane _only_ will I spend countless days eating Ramen for him to have shots or the best quality food. This I have done many times. I hate admitting it, but if given the choice between Shane and Carbon, my choice would clearly be Shane. Now, not to say that Carbon isn't a loved and cherished member of the family, but he is not my child. I love saying "furbaby" and "furkid", but it's just like when I call adult dogs "puppies". Kind of like a pet name. No way could my love for Carbon, as great as it is, EVER be equal to my love for Shane. It's just not possible. Yes, he is a family member, but not a child. Call them what they want, but dogs are not just dogs, IMHO. These are not the wild creatures that settled by our fires in the early days, but animals we are fully responsible for. If your personality allows for the dog to be in a kennel all day long and not treated like family, then thats your thing, but opinions were asked in this thread, and mine is that we should integrate these dogs into our pack structure. Which means my dog eats near where I eat, sleeps near where I sleep, and spends as much time as possible with me. It's the most natural thing, and to deprive them of such seems just plain wrong, IMHO.
I do understand the need NOT to get close in a training scenario, but my OWN animals are in the house with their family and would be mourned on their departure. Yes, FAMILY.
And, as far as culling, I believe you should just spay/neuter. Culling is for the dark ages when they no longer did it. Just because the dog isn't breeding material doesn't mean it still cannot be a great companion.
*THIS IS WHAT DOGS WERE BRED FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!*
If the first domesticators of dogs didn't want pets, then where the HELL did the countless lapdog breeds come from!? Yes the dogs were meant to work for us, but do you not think the hunter tended to his dogs after the hunt? Do you really think the german shepherd would still be around if some "weird" German guy didn't have a passion and love for the breed BOTH as a working dog and a family dog?! Or any breed, for that matter.
I could go on and on with this convo, but I'm sure 1/2 of it will be picked apart, argued about and I really could give a shit less. I do not want to be attacked for my opinion, which I've seen far too often on this board, therefore if you do plan on it, think again because this is the last time I'll be opening this thread. If you've an opinion you think I cannot live without, PM it to me and leave yourself not to look like a fool to everyone else.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

So Sarah and folks...four hours and 35 posts later...want to reiterate that my intent here was to get different perspectives on what dogs are to them, because that does affect people's points of view on training, dog relationships, etc. I don't see there be a right way to view a dog or a wrong way as long as it's not abusive. I certainly can see a preferable way, for me, that echoes a lot of the sentiment here. I'm not sure what I woudl get out of a dog if the relationship wasn't there first. But I recognize others are in the dog world for other reasons. So this discussion is interesting to me as a learning experience, not to find a "right" way to view a dog.

I'll admit that, to Jeff's point (not the ones he was wrong or contradictory on :twisted, there's an issue of watering-down that comes up if the dog is seen as a companion first. So that's a risk.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

QUOTE: I do not want to be attacked for my opinion END

And that is exactly why there are mods and why I disagree that we are too "sensitive."

You're right: We are here to discuss ideas, and not the people who have them.

One assessment of intelligence: People with the lowest IQ discuss things; brighter people discuss people; the brightest discuss ideas.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2006)

Lordy :roll: . Where are these attacks I keep missing? I thought we were having a fine time...points are getting missed here, big time, and intent is being skewed badly. 

Connie: I would treat livestock in the way that that particular species should be kept. Thankfully, Widget's value is not weight-based. He is one hell of a fly-catcher, though.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jenni Williams said:


> Lordy :roll: . Where are these attacks I keep missing? .....


I believe that Sarah was referring to a different thread when she mentioned personal attacks, and yes, you might have missed them. We have some mighty quick-draw mods here, I am proud to say. PROUD, dammit! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2006)

Ah. Makes sense.  I've been remiss lately in my forum-browsing. I think you mods have some sort of siren that goes off when certain people post, and come running to make sure what they wrote is legal...  How do you decide who's on call and do you assign, say, Jeff to one Mod and someone else another, or do you guys switch off? :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jenni Williams said:


> Ah. Makes sense.  I've been remiss lately in my forum-browsing. I think you mods have some sort of siren that goes off when certain people post, and come running to make sure what they wrote is legal...  How do you decide who's on call and do you assign, say, Jeff to one Mod and someone else another, or do you guys switch off? :lol:


We have transmitters implanted. And yes, certain posters log on and all the sirens go off, but we take turns.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2006)

Implanted???!!!  OUCH! :lol: You must take your jobs very seriously to go through that sort of pain all for the sake of people-civil discussion. :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jenni Williams said:


> Implanted???!!!  OUCH! :lol: You must take your jobs very seriously to go through that sort of pain all for the sake of people-civil discussion. :lol:


Think computer microchips. They are partly so Mike can find us if we try to escape.

It's nothing, really........earrings are worse, I think.


Back to livestock vs. furkids..... There's a big area in between the two, isn't there? That first wolf who snuck over to the fire where the meat was cooking..... didn't he leave his pack and join a different pack entirely? That seems to me to be on a whole 'nother plane from slaughter animals.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2006)

Not that I think you were talking to me particularly, but I think that again depends on your definition of "livestock." Horses can be considered livestock by some and not by others, but they're generally not valued for meat until other possibilities have failed. I didn't take calling dogs livestock to mean that they're the same as an animal used for slaughter; I just took it to mean an animal bred or dealt for money. Like a cow. Not that they're personalities or other qualities are similar. I think this thread has gotten somewhat muddled b/c of this difference in perception...or maybe I drank too much last night and got 3 hours of sleep.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> Greg Long said:
> 
> 
> > Calling a dog a "furkid" disrespects both the dog and the children.They are dogs and they know they are not people.If you cant give a dog the respect he deserves then you shouldnt own one.
> ...



Keep posting Stacia!Youre proving my point exactly with every word. 

This is why we have weak dogs.

Actually,pet dogs have the most important job.Far above sport dogs.

I still maintain the mods and everyone else are too sensitive and thinskinned.Im playing by the rules but I dont have to agree with them or like them.

Greg


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

Greg Long said:


> Keep posting Stacia!Youre proving my point exactly with every word.
> 
> This is why we have weak dogs.
> 
> ...


You're going to have to explain how I'm proving your point Greg.

No one is thin skinned here. You can make your point without calling other people names. If you have to resort to making it seem like I'm an idiot, or a weak person (which, if you were to meet me face to face, would not be the impression you'd leave my presence with) to make your point, then you must not have a very strong one. Ideas speak for themselves if they do, indeed, have merit. It is the object of a lesser mind to resort to insult in order to win an argument; those with true intelligence focus on refuting ideas without discussing character.

Of course you'll simply decide this post is also proof that I have no common sense or am a weak individual or am the cause of society's ills or fostered 9/11 or ought to be culled along with your insufficient dogs. But you will still have no argument.


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

I don't call my dogs furkids or furbabies, orwhatever, but even among the people that do, there are separations. Stacia may call Achilles her furkid, but she doesn't allow him on the furniture; doesn't allow him to get away with things like begging at the table or storming out open doorways; doesn't tolerate or encourage behaviors like food aggression or possessiveness like other people who refer to their pets as furkids do. For example, my aunt has a shepherd that she has coddled all his life. She has no kids, so her dogs are filling that void for her. They are destructive, have no manners, are allowed to get in the bed or on the couch with her, run out the door if it's opened, chase each other around the house and WILL knock you down if you're in the way. The shepherd has been 'diagnosed' with ADD and separation anxiety, and is an extremely unstable dog; a complete basketcase. We don't even visit her or call hr anymore because of the dogs. You can't even carry on a phone conversation with her without her interrupting conversation to say "kissy kissy, mommy loves you! mmuahh mmuahh mmuahh!" to one of the dogs as they demand attention from her by whining and/or barking and/or jumping on her. 

Both call their dogs "kids," but other than that aspect, are NOTHING alike. Stacia is more like everyone else here than you think. She is not like the typical "furmommy"


----------



## Anne Jones (Mar 27, 2006)

*livestock ...what are working dogs*

I have 2 working GSDs & I would not consider them livestock. They certainly are NOT fur kids !!! I hate that expression. They in no way resemble kids !!! In fact, I have a livestock animal, too, a horse that I have had for 20 yrs. (he is almost 24 yrs old) Although, he is considered by many, as livestock, I don't feel that way about him...he has been my 'partner' for many years. We have enjoyed each others company & companionship & competed together for many years in X-country events. We have also enjoyed leasurely trail rides & just haning out together out in the field & the barn. He has spent most of his life happily working with & for me. I have a similar relationship with my working dogs, they are my companions, partners in training & hopefully in the future trialing, & live with me in my home. They are a strong presence in my life. They work for me & with me but also they bring me much joy in my life. They also act as the protectors of me & my home. I could really get going here & also speak of 2 occasions that my horse acted as my protector as well, but I won't bore you all about that & will keep this focused on the dogs. A bond is a bond be it with a human or an animal...although I don't know much about 'other' livestock, I do believe that a bond can be formed with any animal that you raise, feed, groom, train (in whatever capacity the animal if capable of) and spend time with. The working of & with an animal increases the ties that you have with that animal, thru respect & coperation. JMO


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

awesome. it seems sufficiently hot in here for me to chime in...

bottom line is i don't care what other people want to do with their dogs. if you want to let them sleep with you and be your furkid that's fine by me. i agree that there is an in between here between the livestock/furkid. my dog NEVER comes in my house. he's a working dog. that's just how i feel a working dog should be treated. that's not to say that maybe in 10 years if i'm not working a PSD, i wouldn't have some golden retreiver house dog that slept with the kids. 

to each his own...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Oh Jeff, you really crack me up...."no one wants to catch the cow in the courage test"................keep'em comming. :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm gonna be chuckling over that line all night!!!


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> ...... that's not to say that maybe in 10 years if i'm not working a PSD, i wouldn't have some golden retreiver house dog that slept with the kids. ......


I also know working dog folks whose retired dogs have become house dogs.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Here are my answers to Woodys' 3 questions:
1. companion
2. yes
3. I have the luxury of seeing my dog as more than livestock because I am not a breeder. I have great respect for good breeders because they have to take a much harder line than I do.

My opinions are the same as most of you who have posted. Dogs are not furry humans. I do take it a little further than most of those who have posted, because I happen to prefer the company of dogs. You always know where you stand, they never stab you in the back & they don't gossip...............oh jeez, I'm reminding myself of Nixon in his "Checkers" speech. :roll: Also, my dog sleeps on my bed & if it takes a little out of his working ability, I really don't give a rats a$$.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:Jeff to one Mod and someone else another, or do you guys switch off? 

Did I get deleted somewhere? I think not oh stinky girl. (yes I left it out on purpose) I don't think I have been deleted ever. So there.  

Defending your rights to love your dogs is fine. I have had a worthless dog or two for sure, but they hung out. My big thing is that overall we are to weak.

People's perception of their dogs needs a tuning for sure. I hear all the time about how the dog protects them bla bla bla. Yeah, maybe the stench from the anal glands blowing will run them off.

We live in a really wierd time right now. Most everything is going to shiitte, so I try and do my part to keep some of the demons out of the dogs. This psycho fur and skin kids thing creeps me the "F" out. Weirdos  

And would someone help Woody get that he is really bad at argueing? Man, you got to get out of the house a little more. I understood what you were trying to get at, but HOLY SH%T you are bad at trying to make a point, or a passable arguement.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:I think you're pissing people off with the "livestock" thing b/c most people don't really have too much one-on-one experience w/livestock. The term carries a negative connotation, which really, it shouldn't. 

You should see me in real life. Funny thing, it is only the dumb ones that ask if their dog would protect them or whatever. Furkids??? Skinkids??? I dream about someone silly enough to use that term in front of me :twisted: 

I don't think I would stop until they were in a corner babbling. And yes, my rage comes from not enough attention from Dad. I just like to focus it on the stupid. Luckily most of them just go to their happy place like the "livestock" they are, smiling with blank stares like I had told them a joke that went over their heads.. If only we could nueter them.  :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: 

I know soooo many people that go through dogs like water until they find one they like. They get ten or so from overseas and sort through them to see if there are any they like. Kind of like a livestock auction.

Lengthy way of saying too much importance placed on a (largely useless)dog.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> And would someone help Woody get that he is really bad at argueing? Man, you got to get out of the house a little more. I understood what you were trying to get at, but HOLY SH%T you are bad at trying to make a point, or a passable arguement.


Lame, lame, lame. You let me down, I expected a lot better than this. At least something funnier....


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> Greg Long said:
> 
> 
> > Keep posting Stacia!Youre proving my point exactly with every word.
> ...


This is funny! :lol: Stacia,where have I called you names?You simply derived that from my post which was aimed at noone in particular until you took it personally.This is just my own opinion and you dont have to agree.But since you were so offended then I guess you are proving my point on a multitude of levels.
Im just giving everyone a different viewpoint.Its up to them what to do with it.Whether you find it disagreeable or not is beside the point and non of my concern.

Greg


----------



## Mike Russell (Apr 9, 2006)

I haven't read the whole thing, though I did like the "We get weak dogs when we breed weak people" thing. 

Here's my POV...
A dog is a dog is a dog is a dog. 
A dog is not a human.
A dog is not basic livestock (like cattle, sheep, goats, horses, chickens, etc).
A dog is useful like a tool, but isn't a tool in that you can't just take it out when you need it and put it up when you're done to forget about it until the next time you need it. (like that big run on sentence?)

Basically, for me, the dog must be up to par for what I want to do with it or it can go to someone that believes in "fur kids". There is only ONE of our dogs that I treat like family...she is retired from breeding, has hurt enough helpers in her time, and is an extremely stable & intelligent bitch so now she gets run of the house and treated differently, more like family than a dog. She (Kora) is the ONLY one of our dogs I feel that way about...not to say that I don't love the others, I do but not in the same way and if need be, I could sell them all except for Kora and not feel bad about it.


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Ok, here's my logic on the dogs in the house issue (screw the warm and fuzzy pack behavior thing some don't agree with), if you are training your dog to be a PPD, don't you WANT the damn dog in the house to PROTECT you?! Otherwise you "serious" dog people are no better than the show people: All show, no go. Kind of like buying a Ferarri and living in Orlando. 
*The object in question just cannot prove it's worth if not given the opportunity to in a real-life scenario.*


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> Kind of like buying a Ferarri and living in Orlando.


I thought the players on the Magic stuck with pitts and cane corsos, mostly.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

A dog is a useful living being. Livestock vs. fur baby??? Puppy mills vs. people that would rather "socialize" with a dog than with a person??? Both extremes are weird. Both extremes are super frequent.

Here's my view:

A sport dog is largely useless, unless it helps the owner get some $$$. If it's just an ego thing, then it's largely useless. Most sport dogs, specially KNPV (sorry Selena. I really do like your dogs, though!) are impossible. They have no manners. If you put them in a patrol car for example, they never stop moving. They react to sudden movement with their teeth too often. They've lived in a kennel too much. They can't be trusted amongst strangers, adults or kids. They have a hard time not getting distracted when in the company of livestock...

A well mannered pet...may be company for old and young alike; fun to throw balls to; they give kids a sense of responsability; they can alert to the presence of strangers; they eat all the food the kids don't want or that falls from the table. They are quite useful.

A working dog??? They are hard to find, but not so hard to raise...and they are not equal to a prey biter that obeys a couple of commands; or an aggressive animal. A working dog's genetics are hugely important...and most often correlate negatively with titles. A working dog must be completely and totally stable. This means it must have been exposed consistently and carefully from birth to everything. A huge amount of time goes into developing a true working dog. In this category I include all dogs that work under handler direction: all retrievers, all patrol dogs, some detector dogs, some SAR dogs.

There's a LOT MORE behind a dog than a nose and mouth plus CONDITIONING. It's quite interesting to see a dog that has never bitten in prey; that bites HARD, close up and at a distance; that's accustomed to all surfaces, all sounds; that can discriminate between situations that call for a bite and those that don't; that can accept new people easily; that naturally understands the importance and composition of its pack, and is thus naturally protective and territorial; that is well behaved under all circumstances, and most importantly, that accepts handler direction TOTALLY. If you think I'm BS'ing, think again.

Those that see dogs as a means of competition...lose out on having a dog as a "team" member. People that compete in dog sports compete for themselves. No real purpose. No exception. Those that participate in dog sports but do so to have fun with their dog, see the dog in "the pet category".

With a working dog, a handler can use more "organic" forms of communication, as opposed to those that train in the typical way: "obey me in anticipation of a reward".

The more automatized training becomes, and the less a dog understands its human leader, perhaps the more flashy the performance, but surely the primordial bond is lost...and all that is left is a set of short term conditioned responses. A prime example of this is heavy reliance on escape training.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> Ok, here's my logic on the dogs in the house issue (screw the warm and fuzzy pack behavior thing some don't agree with), if you are training your dog to be a PPD, don't you WANT the damn dog in the house to PROTECT you?! .......


Wait a second............. who said "working" meant only "personal protection" ???


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Andres Martin said:


> Most sport dogs, specially KNPV (sorry Selena. I really do like your dogs, though!) are impossible.


Don´t be sorry Andres, it is your honest opinion :wink: 

Get my picture when I say I don´t want to sell my puppy´s overseas...even here my line is said to be impossible... :wink:


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

It's a bird.......It's a plane................no, it's, it's Jeffs' Super cow!!!


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

GREAT post, Andres.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> GREAT post, Andres.


I thought so, too.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

No, Selena, I don't mean YOUR dogs. :wink: I mean the majority of the sport dogs that are only taken from the kennel to the training field. And I'm not referring to puppies, but to adults. Puppies are like putty, you can mould them.

If your dogs are very intense and dominant from adolescence onwards, that doesn't mean they couldn't have been taught to use that intensity more selectively by raising them more close at hand. If you've kenneled your dogs up to their 8th month, letting them believe they are the "kings of the world", so they do KNPV well, then your dogs are being raised for sport. You are admitting that if you raised them in a more controlling environment, they might NOT think they are kings! :wink: Perhaps they also have the genetics to be stable. :wink: I don't know.

Is your line sharp, or VERY sharp?

It's better to have an abundance of dog to work with, than to have too little.

I like your dogs' looks, size and apparent willingness to work (that I can see on the pictures and videos).


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Andres Martin said:


> No, Selena, I don't mean YOUR dogs. :wink: I mean the majority of the sport dogs that are only taken from the kennel to the training field. And I'm not referring to puppies, but to adults. Puppies are like putty, you can mould them.
> 
> If your dogs are very intense and dominant from adolescence onwards, that doesn't mean they couldn't have been taught to use that intensity more selectively by raising them more close at hand. If you've kenneled your dogs up to their 8th month, letting them believe they are the "kings of the world", so they do KNPV well, then your dogs are being raised for sport. You are admitting that if you raised them in a more controlling environment, they might NOT think they are kings! :wink: Perhaps they also have the genetics to be stable. :wink: I don't know.
> 
> ...


I was thinking about your quote that KNPV dogs are impossible, what could be the problem that you´re thinking that. 
Maybe because a lot of the dogs who are going overseas, aren´t really have any dressuur on them. They know the game, but not fully trained through. And ofcourse a lot of wash-outs, the ones who are to difficult, are trained wrong, or just don´t have enough..

It is hard,´cause all of us on this board has a different prespective, diffrent training ways, different thoughts about what a working dogs must do...


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Why have posts been deleted in this thread without any explanation or even a note that stated there was a post there?

Andres,

I would very much like to know more about how your raise your working pups.What are some of the little things you do with them?How do you start to teach them a threat from a real threat?

Greg


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

What I do is this (from an older post)



> I teach my pups to bite in full blown social aggression in the following manner:
> 
> 1) Carefully select a VERY confident pup, with genetics that reflect confidence, high prey drive, stability and health.
> 2) I BOND with that pup totally. He sleeps in our room, I have him nearby a bunch, take him places, play with him, etc.
> ...


The bottom line is that the pup must REALLY want to follow me. Much more than playing with other dogs or animals (which I totally discourage). I help the puppy overcome everything it's uncomfortable with...and I purposefully try to expose him to uncomfortable stuff. For example, being carried, lowered, lifted, crowds, animals, machinery, etc. etc.

With the specific THREAT question, I concentrate on teaching the pup trigger words and situations, and I correct (stop) the behavior when the pup displays aggression and the trigger situations or words aren't there.

eg. I take my pup to a specific area at night a few times, people approach me, say hello and pet the pup. The next night someone approaches and through postures and/or loud voices, presents a clear threat. I give the alert command, the decoy increases the aggression, and then I give the bite command, the decoy gets bitten by the dog and submits. I remove my pup by pulling him off the bite thus strengthening it; the decoy escapes thus building confidence and frustration. I command my pup to stop the aggression, then others approach in a non threatening manner, and the pup should be at ease. I avoid patterns completely. Sometimes the pup recognizes the situation and just bites. Also sometimes there is no alert command; just a bite command at a totally passive subject with no trigger situations.

That is what I do. I do not recommend it, nor do I post this as an expert opinion. No one should rely on my view of this approach to dog training, and whoever does, does so at his or her own risk.

You asked about MY pups. For other people's dogs, I do prey development, rewards, etc in the traditional manner.


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Sarah Hall said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, here's my logic on the dogs in the house issue (screw the warm and fuzzy pack behavior thing some don't agree with), if you are training your dog to be a PPD, don't you WANT the damn dog in the house to PROTECT you?! .......
> ...


Because most here are talking about protection... or are otherwise not stating exactly what they are talking about. I was just making a comment to PPDs in specific, though.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> Connie Sutherland said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah Hall said:
> ...


.............................................

OK, gotcha. I just want to be clear that I consider my Border Terrier granddogs (earth dogs) to be working dogs. And they are, too.

Plus one of them reads this forum.


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

I consider them working dogs too, along with herding dogs and good ol' fashion hunting dogs.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Seeing eye dogs for the blind........., that's pretty important work


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Yes, very. I was mainly speaking on what the dog was bred for origonally, but Seeing Eye Dogs, Medical Alert Dogs, and other Assistance dogs are very important. So are Therapy Dogs, to some.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> Yes, very. I was mainly speaking on what the dog was bred for origonally, but Seeing Eye Dogs, Medical Alert Dogs, and other Assistance dogs are very important. So are Therapy Dogs, to some.


SAR..... how many dozens of working dogs belong on this list? That was why I protested the idea of PPDs being the only working dog.

There are many many more........


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

But I understood that Sarah was reading the posts and they were leaning WAY over towards PPDs.


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

The list goes on and on of working dogs, add Cadaver Dogs, Avalanche dogs, water rescue dogs, etc etc


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> The list goes on and on of working dogs, add Cadaver Dogs, Avalanche dogs, water rescue dogs, etc etc


I didn't even know there were special avalanche dogs.

The list DOES go on and on......


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Yep, Avalanche dogs are commonly SAR dogs with some added training. Some are trained just like SAR (+ some conditioning for snow), and others are trained (not sure if they still do this) to be sent out to find unburied victims, then lay over them and bark. Think St. Bernard-type dogs. That's actually what St. Bernards were bred to do, I believe.


----------

