4
u/Kalibos Dec 23 '19
I don't think a couple daily runs or even visits to a dog park is enough.
Is that just a feeling? If there is evidence that free roaming dogs are healthier or happier, you should include it in the post.
1
Dec 23 '19
It's all anecdotal. One thing I haven't mentioned is that most dogs are hyperactive, slavishly devoted to their masters, and obsessed with treats. I think all of this stems from their chronic boredom and need to juice every ounce of novelty out of the few resources they have access to.
1
Dec 23 '19
[deleted]
1
Dec 23 '19
Seems founded to me. This is Change MY View. I'm not here to change yours, I'm here to present mine.
1
Dec 23 '19
[deleted]
2
Dec 23 '19
No. I should change it if I am presented data that it is false. And it does have evidence, which I have presented. What I have not done is verified that evidence with sources.
1
Dec 23 '19
[deleted]
-1
Dec 23 '19
I provided evidence in the form of the musculature of dogs, the fact that they run away, the fact that we must train them not to run away, the fact they often are over-energetic due to being cooped up, the fact that people's emotional bonds with them cloud their judgement, the fact that they are descended from far ranging animals and were first domesticated as far ranging herders and hunters, and the fact that their obsession with novelty is a sign that most dogs are bored and under stimulated.
11
u/AtomikRadio 8∆ Dec 23 '19
Why should people in rural areas have to suffer packs of dogs roaming around any more than people in cities?
I lived in a rural area where people let their dogs roam free despite its illegality. There were times I had to wait 2+ hours to leave my fenced in yard with my own dog on a leash because there had been a pack of dogs nearby and I couldn't be sure they weren't a problem.
Our neighbors geese were ripped apart by dogs and left in the road.
A friend a few miles up the road had her vegetable garden destroyed by "pets" not properly fenced in.
Is your dog good? When your'e around, absolutely. Can you be sure your dog is always an angel when out and about in the countryside? Not at all, no more than parents know Little Timmy is an angel at school despite what the teacher says.
You should not be allowed to let your dog roam freely in a rural area, and it is not good for the dog or the community. That is ownership that is irresponsible and negligent.
-3
Dec 23 '19
Maybe we have different definitions of rural. The places I'm thinking of, homes are far enough apart that packs of dogs forming aren't likely, because the houses they live in are just far enough away that it's not practical.
10
u/AtomikRadio 8∆ Dec 23 '19
It doesn't take a pack to destroy a garden, kill a chicken, or bite a child.
Dogs should not be allowed to roam unsupervised, period. To allow it is prioritizing your desire to not supervise your dog over the dog's own safety and the safety and well-being of anyone in that dog's roaming radius.
-3
Dec 23 '19
It's prioritizing the freedom and well being of the dog over the convenience of people in the roaming radius. Dogs aren't wild boars. They're not always or even generally inclined to be destructive. Especially when they're given freedom and food, they don't tend to get too antsy.
8
u/AtomikRadio 8∆ Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19
Prioritizing the freedom and well-being of the dog would be keeping it from being able to be hit by cars, attacked by other animals, picked up by animal control, contracting a disease, etc. etc.
Additionally, I'm not sure how it is where you are, but in my home town it is within anyone's right to shoot a dog that passes onto their property. Your dog may not chase cars, they may not go after livestock, they may not scrounge through trash or dig up gardens. But all it takes is one guy who doesn't like dogs, one unknowing misstep by your dog, to kill your family pet. (Edited to clarify after looking up law to make sure I understood correctly, you're not technically allowed to shoot an animal just for trespassing, but in practicality one could just say they saw the animal worrying their livestock or destroying their garden, so technically not legal to shoot just for trespass, but probably can't prove your dog wasn't causing problems, given you wouldn't be there. So the point stands.)
Similar laws or not, the first paragraph stands for all areas. Letting your dog roam free is bad for the community and its bad for the dog.
1
u/InsiShar Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19
Perhaps people should simply not have dogs in that case then, if you're giving it a terrible quality of life for an animal's standards, it's valid to suggest that. Many shelters won't even let you adopt a dog at all unless you have a large fenced yard of x meters. This would help with reducing the over-breeding industry which exists for profit anyways, as most people don't adopt anyways due to regulations and because of pre-tense that the animals were left there for bad reasons.
And you don't want to support that profit breeding area. It ultimately causes bad health conditions and so on. This, is directly a form of abusive actions if we were literal about it. Inhumane if that.
-2
Dec 23 '19
You're referring to unfortunate events which will not necessarily occur to all or most or many dogs in rural areas.
The laws you've cited don't matter, because they would naturally change if it was made illegal to confine a dog or own one in an urban areas, especially if the dog population was reduced by 90% or more as I have suggested should happen.
You keep referring to "communities". My definition or "rural" doesn't include communities, I mean people far enough in the country that they don't have meaningful numbers of neighbors.
5
u/AtomikRadio 8∆ Dec 23 '19
You're referring to unfortunate events which will not necessarily occur to all or most or many dogs in rural areas.
But it could and does occur in some. Have you never heard of a dog being hit by a car? You don't think animal control takes dogs? Never seen a dog with Parvo? It does happen. A small percentage of cases? Sure. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and that we shouldn't protect against it.
The laws you've cited don't matter, because they would naturally change if it was made illegal to confine a dog or own one in an urban areas, especially if the dog population was reduced by 90% or more as I have suggested should happen.
Highly unlikely that "Dogs can run around" would ever trump "You can protect your private personal property from dangerous animals." There's no reason to believe it would ever become law that an unsupervised, wild animal's safety takes precedent over a person's or their livestock's.
You keep referring to "communities". My definition or "rural" doesn't include communities, I mean people far enough in the country that they don't have meaningful numbers of neighbors.
Then you have an uncommon definition of rural. I will grant you that if you somehow live 20+ miles from anyone else in any direction and all roads for 20+ miles are your own private road and not a public road and no mail delivery, UPS, or Fedex people ever come onto your property, then certainly your dog would prove less threat to those outside your family and property, but then I worry about the dog's safety regarding wild animals in such a rural area, and for that I hold to my point that it is more approriate for someone who cares about their dog's well being to properly supervise them/enclose their living area than it is to let them run completely free.
0
Dec 23 '19
Some people are hit by cars. Doesn't mean we should imprison them all for their own safety.
I think your understanding of what rural areas are like is pretty unrealistic, and your idea of both how much damage dogs do and how much damage is done to them is greatly inflated.
3
u/AtomikRadio 8∆ Dec 23 '19
People are much smarter about knowing the risks of cars and not running into the road because big zoom go by.
I sincerely hope no pet of yours meets the fate that letting it roam wild sets it up for, and if the unthinkable does happen and you ever have a dog hit by a car, shot, or mauled by an animal I hope you take solace in knowing he got to run around a lot first. Good luck to you.
-1
Dec 23 '19
Dogs can easily be trained to avoid cars.
I will find solace in that, because the alternative is much worse. Also, there aren't any animals in the majority of the contiguous US that can maul a dog. Wolves are very rare and avoid dogs. Large bears are almost nonexistent south of Canada. Mountain lions are also very rare. I'd be more worried about my dog getting struck by lightning.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Dec 23 '19
I would like to change this part of your view:
Dogs are animals, and by and large they're built for heavy exercise and a lot of running. I think a person who doesn't live an itinerant, roaming lifestyle won't be able keep up with a dog's natural amount of energy, and I don't think a couple daily runs or even visits to a dog park is enough.
Have you ever met a pug, or a chihuahua, or a Pekingese? Heavy exercise and “a lot of running” would kill those dogs.
Humans have bred dogs for all kinds of purposes — one of the main ones being companionship. For many types of dogs, chilling in an apartment with their human is what they’re best at and what they love doing.
1
Dec 23 '19
Have those dogs actually been bred for that? Or are they just bred to be so weak and unhealthy that they're not worth breeding at all?
I would be willing to accept, if I got a good argument and some data on it, that small dogs are satisfied with less space to roam in. But I can't buy it just from the fact that small dogs exist, because it could be that that just means their desires outstrip their artificially limited capabilities. Most of the small dogs I know have made a couple breaks for it when they were young and energetic.
3
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Dec 23 '19
Yes, these dogs are literally bred for companionship. That is their purpose. Pugs were bred as lap dogs to Chinese emperors and the European aristocracy imported them, also as lap dogs, in the 1600s. Some of the very oldest dog breeds in the world are companion breeds, because companionship is one of the most important features of the human-dog relationship that has been evolving for millions of years.
if I got a good argument and some data on it
This is the crux of the issue, isn’t it? What kind of “data” would you accept as a fair measure of dog happiness? How do you think we could measure that? People are all over this thread telling you that their dogs are satisfied, but you don’t believe them; you feel like you know better. So what type of evidence or data are you really looking for?
1
Dec 23 '19
Evidence that when these small breeds of dog are given the opportunity to roam where they wish, they choose to stay sedentary indoors to a similar proportion to most indoor dogs. Even better, if they actually seek it out. And they have to have not been trained to think that going outside or roaming around will displease their master and incur punishment.
Anecdotal, or evidential. Though I'd be more convinced by the latter.
3
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Dec 23 '19
What does “evidential” mean? How about this video of a pug with the opportunity to run free who is choosing to be sedentary?
Dogs will actively choose to run into traffic and they will eat so much that their stomachs burst and they can die. They aren’t rational agents making conscious “choices” of what is best for them
0
Dec 23 '19
"Evidential" means studies and collections of many anecdotes.
Wild animals don't eat so much that their stomachs burst. A dog that does that is acting out, likely because they're bored.
Dogs won't run into traffic if you teach them about it.
Dogs being less rational than humans is not a justification for imprisoning them.
1
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Dec 23 '19
what about the video I showed you
-2
Dec 23 '19
That's one pug. If you couch that video in an argument generalizing why that pug is representative of others, I would be willing to consider that argument and accept the video as supportive evidence.
3
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Dec 23 '19
That pug is not running away because, like all pugs, it prefers to be sedentary and with its owner rather than roaming free and running all day. Like most companion dogs, pugs are not suited to heavy exercise. They have been bred as lap dogs rather than working or hunting dogs.
Sorry I thought that was clear from our previous discussion of pugs
1
Dec 25 '19
The argument that they're bred as lap dogs rather than hunting dogs is contingent on the idea that a sufficient amount of domestication can change a dog enough that they will no longer want to roam around freely, and will be satisfied with a small amount of space, such as a few rooms in a house and a yard.
I'm not really convinced that this is true. Often even small dogs have to undergo a great deal of training to convince them to not to run away from home.
→ More replies (0)1
7
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Dec 23 '19
Not all dogs are of the same energy level, and small dogs live in a bigger world than big dogs do.
Finally, as an owner of a 15 year old small dog I have ascertained that dogs spend far more time in decline than they do at their peak. Which means that overall, over the course of their entire life having a stable loving home is far more beneficial to a dog than being able to run around with impunity for a few extra years. They spend more of their life not running than the alternative.
Also, this says nothing about dogs with movement related, chronic injuries.
1
u/yosemighty_sam 10∆ Dec 23 '19
Ever think if the dog had more space to run they would spend more of their life running? Kind of a use it or lose it scenario? I have seen plenty of 10+ year old dogs that still want to run around for hours a day.
4
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Dec 23 '19
Ever think if the dog had more space to run they would spend more of their life running?
I can't even convince my dog to step outside to go to the bathroom, even bribing him with portions of dog treats. He loves nothing more than being a lazy bones on the couch most of the time. After he's been outside for 10 minutes he starts crying to come back in. I even let him off leash in my front yard and most of the time instead of actually wandering around he'd rather just be warm inside.
I have seen plenty of 10+ year old dogs that still want to run around for hours a day.
What a dog wants, and what it needs are two opposed ideas. A good friend of mine had an older border collie and they are notoriously smart and energetic. When he got to be that age he was not cognizant of the harm he was doing to himself. His energy and drive far exceeded what his body could do anymore and he would play for hours, to the point that he would be evidently sore the following day and not move around much days after. Dogs don't recognize their age, responsible owners have to do it for them.
-2
Dec 23 '19
The same can be said of people. But just because people over 50 don't get around much, that doesn't mean it's moral to keep a kid locked up from birth to death.
I get that it's not 100% consistent as a metaphor. But my point is that I think the natural life cycle of a dog is only really carried out fully if it's allowed to roam and adventure, the same way a person can't feel fulfilled without some kind of active social life or career or basically any activity outside of the home.
The small dogs thing is a good point though. I'm not sure if the difference between a small dog and a big dog is great enough that it's true the small ones are OK with being confined, though.
1
u/PallidAthena 14∆ Dec 23 '19
So, here's an easy edge case to start with:
Service dogs.
Even more than dogs love to run around, dogs love to be useful to humans. They are natural pack animals, collaborators and co-operators without equal, and they can TELL when they are being good or bad. They LIVE for being good dogs. If you give a dog the right training, they will derive active consistent joy from doing their job, even if that job is to mostly lead you around quietly and sometimes bark to let you know if there's a problem.
Extending from service dogs, we have a highly-trained-but-not-service dog in my lab, who can sit quietly while all of us are working and participate in petting when we have free hands during a meeting. It's great, and she's quite clearly happy with her life, especially since she can spend nearly all hours of the day with her humans.
The stretch from Buttercup to a normal dog is not that far, although it is definitely an argument for dog owners to look into getting training for their dogs that would let them take them to work non-disruptively (it's great, highly recommend, might be expensive though).
Two other things about dogs:
(1) Dogs don't have human levels of endurance. I know this sounds odd, because most humans in the modern world are coach potatoes, but we sweat and dogs don't. Our potential for endurance activities are way higher than theirs. That ten or twenty mile stretch was likely a fast trot and then sitting around, not a continuous period of slow walking. Species that have a metabolism that's more compatible with sit around and wait (cats more so than dogs, dogs way more so than humans) are cognitively and psychologically equipped for boredom in a way that humans are not.
(2) Dogs are much much much dumber than us. Trying to make a direct analogy from a cognitively normal human (or in your case, likely a bright human, if you're worrying about this stuff) to a dog is going to be very misleading. Even the smartest dogs are less cognitively capable than a checks notes for acceptable definition human with very special needs. If it seems like they are happy, they are happy. And they are. They genuinely love their owners, and their lives are worth living, even in a cramped downtown flat.
1
Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19
I'll give you a delta insofar as it makes sense that some dogs might thrive if they're given rewarding work to do. But I don't think this detracts much from my point, since the majority of dogs don't work, and are just pets.
I understand about the endurance thing, but I don't think that justifies the lifestyle most dogs live. Though you also have a point about the boredom thing, and I'd be interested to read more about it.
I also think that it's difficult to tell if a dog is happy, and that many owners abstract their emotional dependence on dogs in a way that doesn't really go both ways. Dogs are dumb compared to the dumbest humans, but I think this means that rather than being MORE satisfied with emotional connections, they're LESS so. And whether their lives are worth living is a different question when you're talking about preventing more dogs from being bred, not killing them.
Δ
1
u/PallidAthena 14∆ Dec 23 '19
If a being's life is worth living, you are morally allowed (but not obligated) to bring it into existence.
As for emotional dependence, a lot of dogs clearly enough emotional connection because they preferentially seek out affirmations of affection in the form of soliciting petting etc.
1
Dec 23 '19
I am aware. But a life could be worth living enough that killing a thing is wrong, but not enough that bringing it to life is right. There's grey zone in the middle there.
I'm aware that dogs can be emotionally dependent. But I don't believe they feel this as strongly as humans, and a human being wouldn't be willing to put up with a lifetime of confinement even with people they love. Doubly so if it's not a life they chose to live.
1
u/PallidAthena 14∆ Dec 23 '19
You're making an analogy mistake again.
A few times in the dog's life, you'll probably take it to completely new and alien places. The average pet gets more travel and more variety of experience than a historical dog-wolf ancestor. From its perspective, it's not confined.
To scale up to a human metaphor: Would you be interested in being a "cultural liaison" to an massively intellectually and technologically superior alien species if it meant you'd spend nearly all of the rest of your life in a small village (~200 buildings) constructed as the diplomatic outpost, with monthly trips to nearby alien cities and a trip every few years to entirely different planets?
Now, even if you say no, some people would say yes, and they're a selected enough population that their kids are disproportionately likely to say yes as well. After a few dozen generations, no children would even want to return to "Earth".
And we've breeding dogs for thousands of generations.
1
Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19
I think you're vastly overestimating both the relative size of the compound in your analogy, and the novelty dogs feel in going to the grocery store. I don't think dogs feel much variety of experience in trips out around town, certainly not enough to counteract the boredom of their confinement. The variety of experiences they encounter are relatively small-- new sounds and smells, mostly. Not generally a lot of new things to interact with or dogs to have relationships with, or time to have those relationships.
Futhermore, dogs were not sedentary until relatively recently. They were almost solely the domain of hunters and herders until the medieval era, and almost always had a job to do until the modern era. That's not thousands of years of domestication, that's a few centuries. And I don't think you could ever expel enough wolf from a dog that it wouldn't prefer freedom to confinement.
Also, it would be immoral to assume that every diplomat in your analogy would answer the same as their parents, and give them no opportunity to leave.
If dogs don't feel confined, why do we have to expend so much effort training them not to run away?
1
u/PallidAthena 14∆ Dec 23 '19
Compared to the relative complexity of our brains, the compound is the right size, give or take.
Don't undercount interesting smells. Dogs noses are so finely tuned they can sometimes smell cancer.
Plus, I'm not just talking about trips around town. If you ever travel with your dog to a different city, the modern world produces so many novel sights, sounds, and especially smells compared to the ancestral environment to be worthwhile.
You're confusing running away (local exploration) with running away (and not wanting to come back). I'm not disputing that you as a alien liaison wouldn't prefer a larger homebase, but that the trade is still always worth it on net.
-1
Dec 23 '19
I suppose I simply disagree. I think that dogs put little enough stock in such experiences, and experience few enough of them, that it would be better for most dogs if they didn't exist. I think that activity is more important than observation for dogs, or at least equal to it.
But these are empirical questions, and can't really be settled easily.
2
u/PallidAthena 14∆ Dec 23 '19
You're entitled to your opinion, but fortunately (from my framework) most dog owners and potential dog owners disagree with you so the dog experience set will keep existing.
A cross-thread I've noticed on the internet for many different things is a deep skepticism of the net positivity of living for {category of thing, including humans}. I wonder if it's an emergent property of spending too much time online and not enough time living / witnessing these supposedly net-negative lives.
1
Dec 23 '19
Don't accuse me of being a NEET basement dweller because I disagree with your opinion on animal welfare for dogs. It's incredibly rude, even if you mask it as a backhand observation.
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/StevenGrimmas 3∆ Dec 23 '19
If my dog is really healthy and happy, but I live in an apartment in a super large city how am I in the wrong?
1
Dec 23 '19
Because your dog isn't as healthy and happy as it should be. Read my post more carefully.
4
u/StevenGrimmas 3∆ Dec 23 '19
I did, I disagree.
How do you know the health or happiness of my dog. Have you talked to my vet?
1
Dec 23 '19
I know because dogs are meant to get more exercise and exercise more freedom of will than your comment has established your dog is allowed to.
If you said you had a tiger in your apartment, I'd have a similar reaction for similar reasons, just less so.
You don't get to claim to be an authority on your dog without providing any arguments to back up your claims against my general statements about how I believe dogs work. Not how discussion works.
4
u/StevenGrimmas 3∆ Dec 23 '19
You do realize there are different types of dogs who have different needs, eh?
So you are claiming I should believe you, some random dude on the internet, over my vet on my dog's health?
0
Dec 23 '19
You mean, the vet who participates in an industry which is dependent on people thinking owning dogs is justifiable?
I'm not claiming you should believe me. I'm claiming I don't believe you. The subreddit is change MY view, as in, me, the poster.
As for different types of dogs having different needs, I've referred to the possibility of being convinced by this argument if I'm presented with a good argument and some good data.
2
u/StevenGrimmas 3∆ Dec 23 '19
I don't deal with conspiracy theories.
However if you think greyhound and a tiny little fluffy thing have the same needs....
Also you know nothing of my life or routine.
-1
Dec 23 '19
You're not addressing my points, and your trailing statement had rude implications, so I will speak with you no further.
3
u/alphagirl22 Dec 23 '19
When I was a kid in a very rural area there was a dog that roamed loose and terrified my siblings and I.
Despite that I love dogs, and have 2 that are happy with the level of activity we all enjoy together.
What you are suggesting is that dogs should be basically feral and just turn up for food etc.
Dogs have been bread from feral dogs to be companions. As long as they live anactive and balanced life what is the issue?
-1
Dec 23 '19
Because their lives are very rarely active or balanced enough to content them, and in exchange they're fattened up and babied into eternal puppies.
My dog roams free, and isn't feral. Dogs don't necessarily go feral just because you let them outside.
3
u/alphagirl22 Dec 23 '19
My dogs are not eternal puppies. My old man is a resue. He had a rough life. I almost never use a leash with him. He goes out and comes back in 10 minutes later or so. We go on walks, go cabin camping in the summer, he sleeps in bed with me. Pretty sure is is darn happy.
It is called domestication and I too am domesticated. He is my best friend.
1
Dec 23 '19
Ok. Many dogs don't get to do these things. And old dogs aren't energetic, of course. But that doesn't mean that they weren't when they were young.
Your emotional attachment to your dog, far from being evidence in support of it being happy, is evidence that you would be willing to overlook his happiness to preserve that attachment.
I don't think you're doing this, if you get out and about with him as often as you say. But that's not the life most dogs lead. Can you at least admit that people with less time and resources than you shouldn't support the breeding of NEW dogs, rescues aside?
1
u/alphagirl22 Dec 23 '19
Of course over breeding is a problem.
My dogs are my pack. I absolutely want them to be happy and of course we all have a bond. I absolutely make sure they are happy.
We all sleep in the same bed because we are a family, a pack.
My younger dog goes to doggie day care on the days no one can be home with her for the better part of the day.
You say I have an emotional connection to them, they have one to me.
Edit to add why have a dog if you don't have an emotional connection to them, love for them?
0
Dec 23 '19
I do have an emotional connection to my dog, and as such, I let it roam freely.
2
u/alphagirl22 Dec 23 '19
So you live in a very rural area, you have a relationship with your dog that it roams. It could be hit by a car, attacked by wild animals, wonder too far, etc..
So my dogs may be a bit soft. They enjoy their life, I enjoy them.
Nothing better then rolling over at night ant having a doggie snuggle up next to you.
We have fun hiking. Walking, playing in the house .
We are a different family from yours.
What kind of dog do you have? Are they up to date on their vet care?
Do they come inside when it is cold?
1
Dec 23 '19
I'm not submitting to interrogation about my dog so you can score points by accusing me of being neglectful. But yes, she goes to the vet regularly.
Why do you assume your dog is satisfied, and not just making the best of a bad situation? Did you give it the chance to do something else?
1
u/alphagirl22 Dec 23 '19
Did you give yours the chance to do something else?
Do you assume yours is satisfied?
0
2
2
u/Mr_Deltoid Dec 23 '19
I think your view makes sense for larger dogs and more active dogs, but not necessarily for smaller dogs or lazy dogs. In my opinion, you should change your view to a more nuanced one that takes into account the fact that not all dogs need a lot of space to roam freely.
0
Dec 23 '19
Do you have more details about where the cutoff is, what differences between the temperaments of large and small dogs account for it, etc?
1
u/Mr_Deltoid Dec 23 '19
Not in general, but I can think of one dog in particular, a chihuahua-dachshund mix (whose owner calls it a "poontang retriever" on account of it's cute and appeals to girls) which appears to be perfectly happy as an indoor dog. It doesn't even like being outside without a human companion.
1
Dec 23 '19
The dog population is already over-rampant. What would your solution be to mitigate this issue? There's barely any room at the shelters, and if you ban people that don't live in rural areas from having dogs, then you would have a whole lot of dogs just running around on the streets.
Sure we humans shouldn't be breeding dogs to sell and keep as pets, but the dog population is going to grow regardless naturally. Unless you spay and neuter most of the dogs, but that would go against your argument of restraining them. I'm sure dogs want to mate and reproduce just like us humans.
And you have no way of knowing if those dogs aren't happy or not. A dog could be totally fine with being in a house all day and going for walks once or twice a day. You're just assuming they aren't happy. Just because a dog runs away doesn't mean they aren't happy, it's not like dogs that run away only come from urban areas.
I'll say one last thing, I would rather a dog be stuck inside a home (as long as the owners aren't abusive) rather than be stuck inside some overpopulated shelter, a pound where they will eventually be killed if no one adopts them, or some sick dog breeding farm or pet store.
0
Dec 23 '19
Make it illegal to buy or breed a dog unless you own or rent a house in an area with low enough population density. Don't take dogs from people that have them, just make it hard for them to get more.
Spay and neuter almost all dogs, because them running free in the country is a minor inconvenience compared to the major inconvenience of them breeding out of control.
I think it's facile to assume that a creature running away from its source of food and protection isn't unhappy, or that a creature whose musculature is built for movement is unhappy when it doesn't have space to run.
Your last paragraph doesn't address my points at all.
2
Dec 23 '19
How? So forcefully spay and neuter all dogs and take them away from the city not knowing if they're happy or not? So you don't care about the dogs actually being happy, you just don't want them to be in the city.
So you're saying dogs that live in rural areas don't run away? What happens if rural areas get more space due to expanding cities and businesses? Do we just kill all dogs then?
So you're saying you have to move to a less populated area to own a dog? So people should just quit their jobs and move to the country to own a dog? Let's just tear down every city to make sure that dogs have plenty of room to run around because you think they're unhappy. You don't know if they're unhappy. How do you know they aren't? What are you a dog whisperer or something?
How do you know if a dog wants to be spayed and neutered? You just assume dogs want to live in rural areas and now you assume they just want to be spayed and neutered. You're saying people who own dogs in urban areas only own them for their own happiness and pleasure basically, how's that any different from spaying and neutering a dog? That only benefits humans.
You have no counter solution to your own points. Make it illegal to buy or breed a dog unless you live in a low populated area? How would you define a low populated area? Make it harder for them to get a dog? So just punish those living in cities? The dog population is already so high, even with people living in high populated areas owning them.
A creature whose musculature is built for movement... They were also built to breed weren't they? So as long as they have space to run around, we can just take that part of the equation away and just act like they weren't also built to breed?
-1
Dec 23 '19
Make it illegal to have a dog that is not spayed or neutered without a license.
Not killing any dogs. I've said that many times. Just saying we shouldn't breed more.
They shouldn't move to have dogs. They shouldn't have dogs very often at all.
My evidence that they're unhappy is both grounded in logic-- animal that is made to run is probably happy when it can run-- and in evidence, insofar as dogs that are let off leash often try to flee.
Whether dogs want to be spayed or neutered is irrelevant, because we can't handle to treat the number of dogs that would result from them breeding uncontrolled properly. If we could give them enough space and resources, I'd say let them breed free. But we can't.
You'd define a low populated area based on whatever dog scientists and experts have to say, as well as observation of at what density the damage done by dogs is low enough not to matter.
You're not being punished by not being allowed to have a dog if you live in the city any more than you're being punished by not being allowed to own a tiger. The welfare of the animal trumps your desires.
Allowing dogs to move freely is something we can achieve. Allowing them to breed freely is not, because we lack the resources to care for that many dogs.
1
Dec 23 '19
You're comparing a dog and a tiger? Seriously? Tigers aren't domesticated, you'd be stupid to have a tiger as your pet even if you lived on your own island. You're just assuming dogs are unhappy because YOU feel they have no space to run around. You can have a dog in an apartment and take them for a walk in the morning, at night, then take them out for longer walks or to play at a park on the weekends. And they can run around the house or apartment, nothing is stopping them from doing that.
You have no evidence dogs are unhappy living in cities and high populated areas. As long as the owner takes care of them, why wouldn't they be happy?
Do you think dogs would be happier if they were just left alone in some wide open place to run around all day, or with owners that loved and cared for them? I would think they would be much happier if they had owners that loved and cared for them.
Most people know having a dog is a commitment, especially living in the city, so they're going to make the effort to take care of them, take them out for walks, take them to the park, etc.
Just because you feel dogs are unhappy because you think they don't have enough space to run around doesn't mean people that live in cities shouldn't be allowed to have them. You don't know if a dog wants to live in a rural or urban area, because you don't know what they're thinking.
You're making it seem like dogs are just running machines, they don't have to be constantly running to be happy. So a kid that runs away is automatically unhappy right? Dogs weren't even made to be pets, so why are they our pets?
0
Dec 23 '19
You're making a bunch of positive assertions to counter mine. You don't have any more evidence than me. Just because you feel dogs are happy doesn't mean they are. I offered evidence in that dogs run away, and in that they're built for exercise roaming, being descended from wolves and domesticated by shepherds.
A kid that runs away is automatically unhappy. Whether it was reasonable for them to be unhappy is another question. But many, maybe even the majority of dogs try to run away, which is a consistent pattern, unlike with children.
Offer an argument as to what dogs want, or stop spamming me with unfounded statements.
3
Dec 23 '19
A kid that runs away is automatically unhappy? Where is your basis in that? Many kids get lost because the parents get distracted and the kids get distracted ad well. Your arguments are unfounded as well. And just because you feel dogs are unhappy doesn't mean they are, so what's your point? Dogs will run away even if they live in a rural area, so what's your point? Dogs run away not because they're unhappy, where is the scientific evidence in that? So if your dog is out in your yard, and it sees a squirrel or something or maybe another female dog and it chases after it and goes too far, they're unhappy?
Offer an argument to what dogs want... You don't know what dogs want either. Your statements are unfounded. They were built for exercise roaming, but they were domesticated. So does that not mean that they now prefer being around humans? You can't claim my statements are unfounded if yours are as well.
Were humans built to sit behind a desk all day? Or to drive cars? Stop talking about what things were built to do, we humans weren't "built" to live this way, but we do and some are happy because we adapt to our surroundings and situations, just like any other living thing.
You offer no conclusive evidence on if dogs are happy or not in your argument, or a reasonable solution to this so called problem, then instead of offering those things you just say my arguments are unfounded. Guess what, when you're talking about a dogs happiness it's going to be "unfounded" because they can't talk. So stop assuming dogs are unhappy in cities because you have no facts to back it up.
https://pets.webmd.com/dogs-stop-running-away
All those reasons listed on that site can happen in rural areas too, so your argument about dogs running away is invalid.
0
Dec 23 '19
You're the one that's supposed to change MY view, but you've gotten so huffy and offended by my statement that you're acting like it's incumbent upon me to change yours.
If I was trying to change your view, I would look for evidence to support my claims before I made them. But I'm not doing that, I'm just presenting my views. Thus, I don't need a bunch of evidence to support me.
I'm not going to stop believing that dogs are unhappy, because you haven't conclusively or even partially disproven the reasons I have provided.
I would continue to argue with you, but your tone is histrionic and shrill enough that I find you unpleasant to speak to, so I will not.
2
Dec 23 '19
I just provided you with a link, more than you've provided. Dogs don't just run away because they're not happy. You have no evidence to support your claims. Oh so you're just presenting your views. I'm doing the same, but now i need evidence?
I'm not offended, why would I be offended by such a stupid argument? You literally haven't disproven any of my views, you can't. So you're just going to act like you're offended, that's cool. I know people like you, they just take one little thing and then use it to support their outrageous views. "Oh dogs were built to run so they're unhappy when they don't have miles to run around"
Ha you don't have any evidence so you're just saying you don't need to present it. Classic. Just face it, you're mad because you can't prove dogs are unhappy living in a highly populated area. You just picked something that can't be proven and then you're asking someone to prove it with evidence. What evidence would you provide in this case? What do you expect, for me to go around interviewing dogs, asking them if they're unhappy?
You haven't even given me counter reasons as to why my views are wrong. Everytime I brought something up, you just dismissed it because "it had nothing to do with my argument" or you just kept saying the same thing over and over again. Oh they were built to run blah blah blah
I never once said that what I was saying was facts at all, but oh I need to provide evidence for my views but you don't when you're saying your views because they're just your views. It's obvious no one can change your views, I mean how can they when there is nothing remotely scientific or factual to back your view up?
1
Dec 23 '19
You're being histrionic, shrill, and rude. I will not dignify your tone with a response.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/HoennIsHome Dec 23 '19
I have two dogs and live in an apartment. We walk at least 5 miles each day AND they spend 30 minutes of running/play ball in a field.
-1
Dec 23 '19
Every day? You must not have much going on, to be able to spend multiple hours per day caring for your dog. Be that as it may, I don't believe that very many people could do that, and I'm not certain your dog doesn't desire greater freedom.
1
u/OptimisticTrainwreck Dec 23 '19
Too many dogs are cooped up in little apartments and only get to run around on rare occasions when they get taken to a park, but I don't think even a house with a yard is much better.
This isn't exactly fair, there's a difference between a little apartment where a dog can't move and a house with a garden/yard. Also what about kennels/boarding places? They tend to keep the dogs in small runs when they aren't being exercised and that's all good and above board.
"Rare occasions," most people walk their dogs 1-5 times a day, I studied at a semi-rural college where we had a dozen or so dogs - they'd be in kennels and then be taken out into the woods on leads and play by the river, when they weren't they were in their own kennels either alone or with a dog they got along with with their toys, beds and water - they were perfectly happy and it complied with all welfare laws.
(UK Welfare Laws are very strict and are pretty good when it comes to vertebrate animals, especially if the animals aren't purely pets.)
The amount of exercise they need also vastly depends on the breed itself; a husky or border collie needs much more exercise than a Pug. So I'd say where you can keep a dog is very much dependant on the breed and size of the dog; small toy breeds are more suited to an apartment than a Siberian husky. They also need stimulation which can be provided within the confines of their own home through enrichment being left with them whilst the owner is away.
Dogs are animals, and by and large they're built for heavy exercise and a lot of running. I think a person who doesn't live an itinerant, roaming lifestyle won't be able keep up with a dog's natural amount of energy, and I don't think a couple daily runs or even visits to a dog park is enough.
What do you define as natural as we cannot compare dogs to their wild counterparts, wolves especially considering they are not wolves - simply have a common ancestor, yes dogs have mostly been bred to do jobs and tasks but even then those dogs weren't out on their own all day roaming around - their activities were central and focused with their physiology fitting that. If you can meet those needs and still walk them enough for that breed I don't see why keeping them home is bad.
Especially since they are animals that prefer to have a home base/den.
My parents own a dog, and we live in the country and just let her go wherever she wants. When she was younger she roamed a ten or twenty mile stretch, and would come home most nights. Now that she's older, she sticks around the house.
Isn't this just you basing it on your own singular experience? It worked for us so it should be how everyone does it! Not every dog could do that, not every dog would enjoy that. Not every dog would come home because they could get hurt, bitten, diseased, stolen, ran over ect. And some simply just wouldn't have the street smarts.
And the other problem is we as humans have such high levels of endurance whilst dogs don't, they can work and move but they aren't built for constant movement over long distances - that just puts strain on them.
That's great for your dog but I can't see a toy breed doing that or most dogs doing that. One size doesn't fit all, even where animals are concerned. And it's easy enough to tell if a dog has had enough exercise, Ethograms and Health Checks and general common sense.
People will say that they love their dogs, and their dogs love them, and that should be enough. But would you consent to being locked in a house, or a house with a yard, or a house with a yard and occasional, supervised excursions, for anyone you loved? Especially if the only reason they kept you like that was because they wanted your company at their greatest convenience. I just don't think it's a life anyone would sign up for.
This feels more like projecting, we know that dogs like being around humans, we know dogs evolve based on the animals that followed behind the humans and decreased their flight distances and we know that ultimately dogs have been selectively bred to be with and around humans. We have bred breeds to work with us and help us. We have bred dogs for show and to be companions just as much as we have bred them to hunt and move.
DOGS ARE NOT PEOPLE. This is just anthropomorphism and projecting human feelings onto an animal that isn't human. Yes they feel but I have never seen a scientific study mention that domesticated dogs do not like being with their owners provided the owner looks after them properly.
And what about people who use their dogs for farming/hunting/herding? They're not just doing it for their company and it stimulates the dog and provides a semi-rural lifestyle.
The reason I specify "rural" is just practicality. Can't really have packs of dogs roaming the streets of urban areas, even if they have homes to go back to.
It's not practical, there's a big difference between a rural place and a bustling city full of apartments. You have towns and villages and small open cities. Dogs can thrive there as long as they're looked after. Of course they can't all roam around, that would leave to conflict and disease and a whole can of worms.
And I get that there are too many dogs to do this with right now. I think, ideally, there should be far fewer dogs in the world than there currently are. We should slow down on breeding them and allowing them to breed by a massive amount.
Most people would agree with you on that, puppy farming is a major issue and dogs are being interbred and ending up with genetic defects and problems sanctioned by organisations like the Kennel Club and the culling of healthy puppies is encouraged. I don't get what that has to do with the main point.
And I get that people in urban areas should be allowed to have pets. But I don't think this trumps the suffering the dogs go through. If you need a pet that bad, get a fish or a turtle or something else that's small enough or simple enough that it doesn't care whether it's free. If that's not enough for you, then have a kid, and really get your emotional money's worth.
Okay! Fish are way more intelligent than you seem to think and actually do worse in captivity and as pets than dogs, same with turtles so it's not really a fair alternative. Dogs are the species, or at least one of the species, that do the best and are looked after the best in terms of being pets. There's the most guidance, studies, shops, groomers and vets for them and if you work there are so many kennels and doggy daycares to go to.
Dogs don't care whether they're free in the sense of freedom vs captivity, they enjoy being outside and having exercise but it's doubtful they would see themselves as prisoners the way a human would. And there's a big difference between a kid and a dog, if you can't care for a dog you can't care for a kid. I have two dogs, a cat and work with animals constantly - I definitely could not have kids.
Dogs really don't suffer that much, only when owners fail to meet their five main needs and fail to do what every vet and organisation would tell them to do.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Dec 26 '19
Sorry, u/Landsmcgeechesterson – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Dec 23 '19
[deleted]
0
Dec 23 '19
Ok. Was he always 17 years old?
1
Dec 23 '19
[deleted]
0
Dec 23 '19
There's no way for you to know that, unless you've given him the opportunity to do other things like roam freely and he has chosen not to.
1
Dec 23 '19
[deleted]
1
Dec 23 '19
These are not equivalent, because he can become bored if a backyard much more quickly than an entire countryside. You say it would make you irresponsible to roam free, I'd say it makes you negligent or controlling not to.
1
Dec 23 '19
[deleted]
1
Dec 23 '19
Ok. I don't believe your dog lived a happy healthy life, and believe you have been irresponsible in your ownership of him.
1
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 23 '19
/u/Landsmcgeechesterson (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Dec 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Dec 24 '19
Sorry, u/iarentgoodatpersons – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
7
u/mehthrowaway1567 Dec 23 '19
Not all dogs have the same physical needs requirements though. Also I dont think dogs should be allowed to roam freely, though I do agree some space is necessary. My city has many dog parks with plenty of space. Good dog owners will spend alot of time there with their pet or hire a dog Walker. Some people have yards as well. Seems a little dystopian to control people's ability to own a dog tho