Praise ???

tallus

It's insulting that you conviniently lumped everyone here in the same boat peasant, I do research when I'm thinking of keeping any creature, and I have asked for help on here in the past because there's no experience like hands on experience. I have also given advice because I have kept a wide variety of creatures my self and I do have hands on experience. I have never kept a dog though they just aren't my type of pet, and personally I agree with you on some of the comments, it's really sad to see so many dogs roaming around the streets after christmas every year people should be brought to court and fined for animal abuse in those cases. Just dont put everyone in the same boat here, it's unfair that you based your original post one species of animal considering the wide array of posts we get on here, and not ALL animals are social or want/need to interact with us. I keep tortoises/spiders/horned frog/and one cat, and they are all well looked after.
Where your comments are taken on board... nobody died and made you the voice of conscience on here, that's why we have mods, and knowledgable ones at that.

peasant

Hi tallus

I think you misunderstod parts of my posts or maybe I left room for misinterpretation (seems to be ahabit of mine).

I have said that there are quite a lot of people on this board with extensive knowledge about proper animal keeping, so I din't lump everyone into the same boat.

All my examples have been made about dogs, as they are what I know most about. Also throughout the board all my posts (with a few exceptions about cats) have been about dogs ...i wouldn't dare write about amphibians, lizards, fish etc ...as I know next to nothing about them.

But I'd be willing to bet you, that for every three or four dogs that are, as you put it, "wandering the streets after Christmas" there is at least one Goldfish being flushed down the toilet,a lizard being starved or chilled to death or any other sort of animal being mistreated.

Simply because animal cruelty starts at the very beginning. The owners attitude before and while he/she gets their "pet". As long as that animal is acquired like any other consumers item to be "used" instead of respected ..there is a long rocky road of POSSIBLE mistreatment and cruelty ahead of that animal.

That is why, while mostly writing about dogs, I have tried to include all types of animals (well, all types of pets at least) into my posts.

tallus

Point taken dude :-)

aare

peasant wrote:

Yes ..if kept company. Because they are reassured in being part of their pack and not abandoned and can rest easy.

...and they also sleep all day left alone (which they do) because???

Dogs actually relate security far more to their territory than to their *pack*, not least because they haven't been wild for millenia.

peasant wrote:

Sleeping in safety, comfort and security is social interaction as well, even if it doesn't look like it.

You speak for yourself!

peasant wrote:

But they don't destroy, bark (excessively), chew (excessively), dig (excessively) or any other action associated with boredom and or panik.

You are wrong about that too. Some dogs bark, chew and destroy both alone or in company, some only do it alone, out of boredom and some only do it with company for attention. Some dogs never do those things at all.

peasant wrote:

Yes ...e equals mc squared means nothing to them. But calling them "simple" is derogatory, and quite frankly, i am disappointed to hear that coming from you.

Now you have put on your "World's foremost authority on the thinking of aare" cap, and presumed that I regard "simple" as a perjorative term.

...and I was trying SO HARD not to use this smiley AGAIN :rolleyes:

peasant wrote:

how about being able to interact completely, make themselves understood, learn to understand, fellow beings that don't even belong to their species?

Let me try and put this diplomatically, no matter how talented in terms of inter-special communication, the canine world may still have some way to go before they fully master the art of making themselves understood by you.

(Well I thought that was diplomatic! )

I suspect that you may need to spend less time projectively identifying with dogs and more time trying to actually understand their independent needs.

They are simple, but they aren't just extensions or mirrors of ourselves.

Roddy23

peasant all this time taken to write out multiple replies, could it not have been time better spent to ,look after your pets.

Hellrazer

Roddy23 wrote:

peasant all this time taken to write out multiple replies, could it not have been time better spent to ,look after your pets.

Thats a stupid comment and off topic.Consider this a warning.

Back on topic please.

peasant

They are simple, but they aren't just extensions or mirrors of ourselves

Whatever gave you the idea that I think that they are (extensions / mirrors) ??


As for dogs cummunicating with us:
I don't know how many dogs you have or what your experience is with them. We have three of them at home. And from watching them communicating among themselves versus communicating with us, it is clear to see that they actually use fundamentally different behavoiurs / expressions to get their message across, depending who their communicating with. I think that is quite an achievement ...especially considering that the "master race" has hardly managed to make itself understood by dogs other than by shouting or force (with some rare exceptions). All we use (in most cases) to communicate with dogs is the same language we use everyday amongst ourselves ...only louder and "dumbed down" ...no great achievement there.


...and they also sleep all day left alone (which they do) because???

because it makes most sense from a biolgical point of view. They are being fed regularly, so they don't have to hunt. They get regular excercise and stimulation (hopefully) so they're not bored or bursting with the need to do something.
And as television or a book means nothing to them, they conserve energy and sleep.
(like most carnivors do when their belly is full and there's nothing else to do)...and they may just have gotten used to being alone.

BUT ...the picture changes immediatedly when the hunger, excercise and stimulation boxes aren't ticked regularly.

Of course a dog can be left alone (and even happy with it) ...just not too long, not all the time.

As for the "real world" ...eight or more uninterrupted hours of solitute in my opinion is too long ...and if it happens five or six days out of seven its (in my opinion) all the time too.



side note

I apologise for not responding properly with quotes and such like. But my computer crashes every time I reply other than using the "quick reply" ...also I can't reply to Private Messages ...is that boards acting up or has my computer gone wrong ?

aare

peasant wrote:

Whatever gave you the idea that I think that they are (extensions / mirrors) ??

Your consistent attitude to them which only grants them existance in terms of their dependence on you and your defintion of they nature and needs.

I think your take on communication is too subjective for response.

peasant wrote:

because it makes most sense from a biolgical point of view. They are being fed regularly, so they don't have to hunt. They get regular excercise and stimulation (hopefully) so they're not bored or bursting with the need to do something.
And as television or a book means nothing to them, they conserve energy and sleep.
(like most carnivors do when their belly is full and there's nothing else to do)...and they may just have gotten used to being alone.

So, according to you, an healthy dog will most likely spend much of the day sleeping whether you are there or not...which rather begs the question of what need is being answered by constant company that is not related to unhealthy co-dependency on the owners part?

Of which "He needs me so he can sleep properly" must take to an whole new level.

Akita Inu, for example, usually actively PREFER to be left alone much of the time, even by other dogs, and can get very cranky if they aren't.

peasant wrote:

As for the "real world" ...eight or more uninterrupted hours of solitute in my opinion is too long ...and if it happens five or six days out of seven its (in my opinion) all the time too.

Then make sure you aren't left alone for that sort of time, because a dog may not feel that same way.

I really think you need to have a more objective grasp of the facts of your topic before you condemn others...

Apart from which, I have suffered form that weird "reply" problem in the past, though not today.

peasant

aare wrote:

Your consistent attitude to them which only grants them existance in terms of their dependence on you and your defintion of they nature and needs.

Wha? Dogs only exist because they need me / humans??
Where did I ever say or even imply that? ...You're loosing me ...fast

I think your take on communication is too subjective for response.

Too subjective because you haven't noticed the differences? Or too subjective because you think I'm off with the fairies again?

So, according to you, an healthy dog will most likely spend much of the day sleeping whether you are there or not...which rather begs the question of what need is being answered by constant company that is not related to unhealthy co-dependency on the owners part?

No, not "it WILL" ...it might. Some dogs (according to my personal experience quite a few) will not sleep happily if left to their own devices, because they get stressed on their own.
The need is the need of a highly social animal to belong to a group ...even if that whole group is asleep Perceived abandonment means stress.
...and I still don't follow you on the co-dependency thing. I certainly don't need my dogs ..though I freely admit to liking having them around ..but that's because they're gas characters.

Akita Inu, for example, usually actively PREFER to be left alone much of the time, even by other dogs, and can get very cranky if they aren't.

So ..an Akita Inu for every working person in the audience? You do know, that they were bred as fighting dogs, deliberately aloof and independent?

I really think you need to have a more objective grasp of the facts of your topic before you condemn others...

Opinons, my dear ...opinions. That particular one is yours. In my opinion I'd like to think of myself as objective as is humanly possible with a topic that is close to ones' heart

Apart from which, I have suffered form that weird "reply" problem in the past, though not today.

Will see, if it's working now ... aahh ....'tis

peasant

To put this "leaving dogs on their own for longer periods" - thing into one post ...here's the gospel according to peasant ...in other words my (I believe informed) opinion:

First of all, the biological side: Dogs are highly social animals with highly developed social skills. Their whole behaviour and makeup is geared towards social interactions. Preferably with other dogs, but they're pretty content with humans too.
Keeping dogs away from social interaction and stimulus;
a) is against their nature
b) prevents them from developing / excercising the social skills they need, if and when they are finally allowed to interact
c) may turn them into social cripples with communication deficiencies

Simple example: Observe dogs in the street. The "old type" dog that is allowed come and go as it pleases and roams the streets all day, you will hardly ever find in fights or altercations ...that dog has had ample opportunity to practise and hone its social skills and avoid conflicts. On the other hand you will see fluffy little couch potatoes being dragged through parks on leads that are never even allowed near another dog ...if two of those ever do get close to each other, a fight (or at least some very noisy commotion) is very highly likely.
That's inter-species communication gone wrong because of lack of social interaction ...the same happens on the dog / people level if social interaction isn't excercised and practised regularly.

Secondly, the training side:
A dog , that is manageable and a pleasure to have around, is usually a trained dog and a dog that knows its place within the group. To achieve this it needs training, encouragement and correction on a continous basis. The more contact it has the smaller the individual training lessons and necessary corrections have to be. But if the dog is left to it's own devices all day long, it will not only not learn new things that it is supposed to learn (because nobody is there to guide it) but it will develop its own, very distinct ideas of what is and what isn't good for it. That means, the more time it spends untrained and uncorrected, the bigger and harsher the lessons have to become when they happen. At a certain point, the dog finally becomes unmanageable.

The "real" side:
"Sure, I'm only leaving it alone while I'm at work". That implies something like eight hours (which i think is too long to start with) ...but is it really?
Eight hours is the time most of us are supposed to spend AT work. We need to get there as well. Then we need to go shopping, collect kids, run errands socialize occasionally and so on.
So how much time does that leave for the dog? Certainly not enough.

The practical side:
A dog on its own is unsupervised. Therefore all sorts of things might happen without you knowing;
- it might knock over its water and almost dehydrate
- it might injure itself badly, with noone there to help
- it might be a nuisance to neighbours
- it might get stolen
- it might damage things
- it might eat stuff that's poisonous
and so on and so on

So, in short, leaving a dog alone should only be done for short(-ish) periods.

as I said ...my opinion

aare

peasant wrote:

Too subjective because you haven't noticed the differences? Or too subjective because you think I'm off with the fairies again?

Can I refuse to answer that on the grounds that I don't actually BELIEVE in fairies...as such?

peasant wrote:

No, not "it WILL" ...it might.

"Will, most likely" and "might" are generally considered synonymous statements. :rolleyes: NOW look what you made me do?

AGAIN

peasant wrote:

Some dogs (according to my personal experience quite a few) will not sleep happily if left to their own devices, because they get stressed on their own.
The need is the need of a highly social animal to belong to a group ...even if that whole group is asleep Perceived abandonment means stress.
...and I still don't follow you on the co-dependency thing. I certainly don't need my dogs ..though I freely admit to liking having them around ..but that's because they're gas characters.

It's not that you need your dogs (though you may), it's that you seem to need to feel that they need you, and THAT's where all the projective identification and co-dependency issues are coming into play.

Apart from which, all you are saying would be considered "left of field" not only by me, but also by most reasonable people.

peasant wrote:

So ..an Akita Inu for every working person in the audience? You do know, that they were bred as fighting dogs, deliberately aloof and independent?

Actually they were bred to hunt bears as much as anything, and be all purpose working dogs, intended to hunt or manage stock, usually with a single master, for life (I thought that, according to you, there are no such things as inbred traits? Particularly inbred fighting traits?)

peasant

aare wrote:

Can I refuse to answer that on the grounds that I don't actually BELIEVE in fairies...as such?

Ok ..I'll accept that
btw ...I'm beginning to enjoy your particular style of discussion

"Will, most likely" and "might" are generally considered synonymous statements. :rolleyes: NOW look what you made me do?

I don't have a dictionary to hand ..but as far as I remember there is quite some distance between "might" and "will most likely" ... I'd guesstimate about 50% - 60% likelihood (Nitpicking 101)

It's not that you need your dogs (though you may), it's that you seem to need to feel that they need you, and THAT's where all the projective identification and co-dependency issues are coming into play.

And thats where you are wrong ...I don't need to feel that they need me. They mostly need each other and some idiot to feed them and to throw them a ball once in a while. I'm well aware of that.

Apart from which, all you are saying would be considered "left of field" not only by me, but also by most reasonable people.

And again ..you are expressing an opinion. Yours and that of an unspecified mass of allegedly reasonable people. Duly noted. I've expressed mine ...live with it.

Actually they were bred to hunt bears as much as anything, and be all purpose working dogs, intended to hunt or manage stock, usually with a single master, for life (I thought that, according to you, there are no such things as inbred traits? Particularly inbred fighting traits?)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough on this ...my emphasis was (supposed to be) on aloof and independent ..not "fighting" ...because yes ..the fighting bit needs additional training / motivation.
Indepence on the other hand can be an inbred trait ...best examples are all the independently working flock guardians.

Next ...


Afterthought:

To get you off this tangent of my alleged co-dependancy with my dogs, please allow me to quote myself from my second post in this thread (I know what you're getting at ..but it doesn't apply to me or my relationship to my dogs)

peasant, much earlier in this thread wrote:

There are different levels of animal abuse:

One is the plain and obvoius ...neglect, maltreatment, physical cruelty ...every thinking human being abhors these kind of things.

But there is a more subtle level as well. It isn't abuse in the physical sense, using violence or open cruelty. It happens on a subconscious level, by people who either treat an animal as an accessory or, just as bad, equal it to a human being, making it out to replace the human child or partner they never had.

Both, accessorising and humansing, is animal cruelty as well. It consists of a failure to realise and respect the basic needs and rights of the animal. Instead of treating the animal according to its natural needs and adjusting their lifestyles and routines accordingly, people squeeze the animal into a role that they have designed for it. Be it as a lifestyle accessory or as a surrogate child. The animal is expected to perform along the desired behaviour patterns, to function... instead of being enabled to live according to its individual needs.

This is a very new trend. It is taking places as people become more and more affluent, more and more selfish and society turns out to be more and more competitive and less morally balanced.

People increasingly turn to animals to fill certain voids in their lives. Be it that they need to project an image or that they need someone that they can "love" and who loves them back unconditionally.

This is done for totally and utterly selfish reasons, with very little to no regard towards the right and needs of the animals.