Be responsible for your dogs !!!(graphic pics)

[moenmitz]

Quote:
This was my point, and you actually said it much more succintly. I apologize for my tendency to be long winded.

Not everyone CAN use their time, money, energies to allow their dog to live close to the way it was designed to-free. But, IF you REASONABLY can, and simply choose NOT to because you think dogs dont have any rights..is that humane? I think most would say, probably not.

If the OP does not have the time or energy to try to handle things in a differnet way, then he/she has done nothing wrong. If they decide they simply dont WANT to...still nothing wrong! They have the right to do what they deem best to protect their animals.

I was not my intention to imply the OP, or anyone else, should be OBLIGATED to train someone else dog. Not their responsibility.

If they are an animal lover, and reluctant to take the life of a dog, as was my impression, they may wish to try another way to solve the problem, something that would benefit all of the animals involved and their respective owners.

So I told them what helped US in our situation. It was a suggestion, nothing more. I only explained my reasons for feeling my dog had earned the right to be outside loose, because I have been oft subjected to the opinions of others that this was way out of line. I also noted many of the posts strongly criticised any who chose to allow their dogs to be loose outside, and I was one who was criticised. I thought it beneficial to explain what ones rationale for doing so might be- in this case, my respecting that a dog deserved freedom when possible and practical. I expected that perhaps people had not really considered the line of reasoning that many choose to use when making that decision, and often, misunderstandings and hard feeligns can be prevented if one is allowed the opportunity to expand their viewpoint.

For this I was mocked and disparaged, and so I attempted to clarify what I had thought was initially expressed quite clearly. But apparently not so much.

 

[horsejody]

moenmitz
I think that having a dog is a huge responsibility. If a person cannot offer supervision for a dog that may wander, they should build a fence. If they can't build a fence to keep the dog on their property, they have to supervise it constantly while outside or not have a dog. It is important to be humane to animals in our care. It is irresponsible to let a dog roam freely. How humane is it to let a dog run loose when it can be hit by a car, attacked by other animals or wreak destruction on other people's pets? It sounds real pretty to "let the dog run," but it is irresponsible. Dogs are domesticated. They don't have survival instincts as good as a wild animal. The worst is when they meet up with other strays (and that is what a loose dog is) because sometimes the pack mentality kicks in and they really create problems. You may not mind risking your pets by letting an unsupervised dog run about, but please don't risk mine. Even if you take away his priviledges and make him regain your trust, he may have already killed my flock and broken my heart. If your dog gets loose and is shot for killing chickens, it is your fault for not keeping it safe. The shooter was being humane. He/she ended the needless suffering of their animals in a quick manner. I had a neighbor once that told me, "If the dog comes on your property and makes trouble, just shoot it." I promptly told him that I would appreciate it if he took care of his own trouble and took care of the dog himself.

 

[horsejody]

Quote:
Domesic dogs were not designed to live free. They have been bred for many generations to live with humans. Wolves were designed to be free. Dogs are pets and deserve supervision and care from their humans. That usually means confinement of some sort. It doesn't mean putting them in a kennel and neglecting them emotionally, but it does mean restricting their roaming.

 

[ninjapoodles]

My dogs have a huge yard in which to run "free," and if I'm out with them, supervising, then they have 5 acres in which to "run free." My fences insure that my dogs' right to live "doggy" lives do not encroach upon the rights of my neighbors not to have to deal with MY dogs on THEIR property.

My problem is with owners, like every single one of my neighbors, who have no perimeter fences or yard fences, and allow their dogs to "run free" wherever they want. When questioned, they will all SWEAR that their dogs "never" leave their property. I don't think they're lying, usually--I think they really believe this, because of COURSE they're not WATCHING their dogs all the time. Well, I have game-cam pics that I'm saving to show these people if there's ever a problem, of their "well-trained" dogs roaming FAR from their own homes. I don't blame the dogs one bit. It's the owners I have issue with. Like I said, I'll just never understand the mindset of people who let their dogs have the run of the neighborhood. I just don't get how anyone thinks that's right.

So far, we've documented: A pair of Weimeraners, a yellow Lab mix, two Great Pyrs, a Golden, a Jack-Rat (who was actually inside our stallion paddock, chasing the horses), a couple of assorted mutts, and a little Yorkie mix, whose owner actually DOES care when her dog gets loose, looks for him, and apologizes. The guy with the Jack-Rat has lost at least two other dogs since we've lived here--one was run over, and the other was SHOT--probably by someone who got sick of it trespassing. He just gets new dogs and doesn't change his management techniques.

None of our neighbors are even aware that we have seven dogs. Why? Because they've never SEEN them. Why? Because we KEEP THEM HOME, behind secure fences, and put them inside when we're not home.

It's just not that difficult a concept, and training doesn't even enter into it, so even the laziest of dog-owners around here could do it, if they chose to. What it boils down to is that they simply don't have any respect for their neighbors or concern for the safety of their dogs.

 

[moenmitz]

Quote:
A fence is only as good as the dog behind it. If a dog is not trained to respect boundaries, to obey its owners, it can always find an opportunity to escape-and if it cant, it will create one. No fence is inpenetrable for the really determined. Take it from someone whose Huskies faced down the shock of an "Invisible Fence" without flinching and ate through a chain link kennel, an eight foot wood privacy fence, and a barn wall. Where there is will, there is way. Supervision is not fool proof either-it takes only a second of distraction for a dog to get away, and if lacking training, an owner might be completely helpless, though only a few feet away. (Crazy Huskies again.)

Most, not all, dogs can be effectively trained to stay home, and it is unfair to blanket all owners who allow their dogs to be loose outside as irresponsible, though I certainly agree that many, if not most, ARE. To allow an UNTRAINED, and thus, UNTRUSTWORTHY dog total freedom, is indeed, irresponsible and incosiderate. To allow a dog who is likely to become the vistim of theft, an auto accident, poisoning, or attack by another animal total freedom is also irresponsible. Each owner needs to weigh the real risks to their unique, individual situation and animal, and decide what means are reasonable to prevent such things form happening.

Obedience training, if properly done, can be just as, if not MORE effective, than any fence. Tim does NOT leave the property. He has been trained NOT to. I know this.

Now, no dog, or owner, or fence, is infallible...but it is well within reason to decide that a dog who has NEVER shown disrespect for a rule, never violated it, never even tried to violate it...will obey it. It is reasonable to decide that by taking the time to train my dog very well, that he is in no LIKELY danger to himself or others.

Yes, he COULD change one day, run off and be hit by a car, or run to the nearest neighbors house and kill a chicken.

My 9 and 5 year olds who play in the yard without me constantly watching could also do so.

But, they have been taught not to, (Ok, I didnt teach them to not kill chickens, but they never seemed to have any sort of fixation on poultry-cide, so i think it can be assumed safely) I do not see a reasonable likelihood that they would disobey, and so they have this privilege because to withhold it without a really good reason would not be fair. We take a chance that our children could be harmed, or that they coudl harm someone else, every time we open the door-even when we dont. But putting them in a bubble would not be fair.

There IS always a chance Tim could defy every characteristic we know to be part of him, that he could defy the training that he has always responded so wonderfully to and leave the property-but there is NOT a really good reason to think that he will.

Yes, a mountain lion could slink over from Montana, as one or two a year do, find his way to our home, and attack Tim...but it isnt likely either, so it isnt fair to keep him behind bars. I cant fathom any other animal-sized danger to him, as he is well...enormous.

Now, we had never trained Tim to not kill chickens, never had them. He used to sleep with an orphaned duck on his head for years though, so it never occurred to us to think he might kill the chickens. We forgot, that just because we equate chickens and ducks as esentially the same, Tim may not. And so we paid a price, and so did poor chickie, and we all learned a lesson. And so we are now training him that chickens are as much apart of our fmaily as cats, kids and ducks. One bad move by him, that was a result of OUR error, not his, should not cause him to forever lose something that he loves so much-roaming HIS domain. Not yours. Not the neighbors...HIS. Without a SINGLE reason to think otherwise, and with many years of flawless adherence to our rules, it would be INHUMANE on our part, to deprive him of this RIGHT.

 

[moenmitz]

Quote:
Domesic dogs were not designed to live free. They have been bred for many generations to live with humans. Wolves were designed to be free. Dogs are pets and deserve supervision and care from their humans. That usually means confinement of some sort. It doesn't mean putting them in a kennel and neglecting them emotionally, but it does mean restricting their roaming.

Most domestic dogs are in fact still fairly close to their ancestral nature, which is why so many "domestic" dogs will run wild in packs, why so many dogs, as you all have noted, will take any opportunity to run off, which is why same dogs will also leap at the chance to "hunt" a chicken. They still respond best to training similar to what an Alpha wolf would use for the rest of the pack,...I think it is pretty obvious that the DESIRE is still there, or we wouldnt be having this conversation. The only BIG change in behavior is that they have been socialized to view humans as part of their pack, and in a proper dog/owner relationship, as the Alpha member of that pack. It was a rare wolf who dared defy the rules of the Alpha, and if he did, he wasn't likely to try, or be able, to do it again.

Tim, a Malamute/Wolf mix, is particularly in love with freedom. The aforementioned Huskies so despised confinement there was NO method they were unwilling to try to obtain freedom. A desire that intense is not something to be disregarded, it is a genuine NEED. Because their instinct was SO strong, they could NOT be trusted to obey when push came to shove, despite training, and so they could never be allowed outside off leash. Period. We did our best to care for their desire to run by sledding with them, and they lived quite happily. Just as one can not fairly ascribe a blanket statement to all dog owners who allow their dogs to be loose, it is not correct in assuming that all dogs have identical needs and can be cared for and controlled in identical ways.

Now, my fat little Pug Sophie...pretty sure she is not real in tune with her wolf mentality. She is NOT capable of defending herself against a cat, would collapse a lung if allowed to be outside for more than ten minutes in anything other than 68 degree weather with optimal humidity, and would not recognize anything as a potential food item if it didnt come out fo a wrapper. Sophie does not need, desire, or receive such freedom.

If one can afford to fence a large acreage, that is fantastic, it certainly LESSENS the need for either supervision or training...but it does not take away all possibilities of escape any more than obedience training does. It is a reasonable preventative step for some. For most, fencing a large acreage like ours, is not in any way clsoe to reasonable or possible-and so we have chosen to implement the cheaper, albeit, more time consuming...and EQUALLY reliable method of containing our dog-training.

 

[Oblio13]

Quote:
Not all of us read the same books.

.

 

[CrazyAcres]

im so sorry you had to experience this-

I am a dog owner- and all 3 of my dogs are prey driven- one extremely prey driven. I also own cats and chickens.

My dogs have their fenced in yard- the cats and chickens have the rest -- if the dogs are out of their fenced yard, they are leashed and under control. I know they WOULD kill a cat or chicken if given the chance.

It is MY responsibility as a GOOD dog owner to make sure they don't harm other animals (whether on my property or not). It's also my job to keep my dogs out of harm's way which means not letting them roam the wilderness freely. Letting your dogs roam is askign for trouble- around here a loose dog could be shot, especially if threatening livestock. A roaming dog could be hit-or worse injured or mauled by a wild animal. Letting your dogs "roam free" is irresponsible to the welfare of the dog, and the welfare of other animals. (hmm, i think this is one of the arguments that got me fed up and leave this board last time).

First thing, if no one else mentioned it, i would call Animal Control. Your area may have leash laws. Second thing I'd make him pay for the damage done to your flock, as well as any vet bills you may incur from taking care of the injured.

Thirdly, I hope this jackass apologizes to you.

 

[moenmitz]

It has occurred to me that the perhaps it is necessary to distinguish between a ROAMING and dog and one that is FREE. They arent necessarily the same.


Quote:
It leaves plenty of doubt for me.

Well, not sure if you doubt the BIBLE...in which case, not going down that road...or if you doubt that God felt animals deserved humane treatment...

In which case there are literally DOZENS of examples I could give you that PROVE that he does....

But, I have to make supper, so I will limit it to just one that I think you will admit, leaves little room for misunderstanding.

Proverbs 12:10- "The righteous one is caring for the soul of his domestic animal, but the mercies of the wicked one are cruel."

 

[mmajw]

I think that the person that began this thread just wanted people to take responsibility for their pets. I dont believe that they wanted it to turn in this direction.