@ Frosty,
I have to agree at least from my experience. Seems to me those dogs who seek to destroy shit are somewhat anxious or maybe insecure even
@ Jack,
I believe you are putting a human emotion onto an animal when the truth is we really have no clue why they do the things they do, right?
I totally disagree.Originally Posted by S_B
First of all, I never said dogs have "human" emotions; in point of fact dogs have dog emotions.
But they *do* have emotions.
I absolutely don't believe emotions are uniquely human.
In fact, I believe there are plenty of "clues" as to how a dog is feeling emotionally ... and why they do certain things ... unless a person is clueless.
Are you saying you can't tell when a dog is happy? Sad? Pissed off? Guilty? Nervous? Etc.?
Got news for ya: those are emotions
If you can't see these things in a dog, I truly believe you're clueless.
If you can see these things in a dog, then you also believe that basic emotions are NOT uniquely human ... AND that there are, in fact, CLUES EVERYWHERE to be seen as to what's going on in a dog's emotional state.
Jack
@ Jack,
Of course I can recognize basic emotions a dog has. But saying they are destructive because they want to be with you is placing your emotions onto what you believe that dog is feeling.
Not the same as seeing a dog wag his tail when he sees you, or the ones you described above.
You actually are the one saying I said things that I didn't.
First you say I am giving dogs "human" emotions, when I didn't (there's no need as they have dog emotions).
Now you're saying that I believe my conclusion is "the same" as a dog wagging its tail, but I didn't say that either
My conclusion does not have to be "the same" in order to be accurate. If I have a dog that is a barking, hole-digging freak outside ... but is calm and doting when brought inside ... I can form the very realistic deduction that the animal just wanted to be indoors with me.
You can disagree with my conclusion, but I am neither ascribing "my" emotions to the animal, nor do I have "no reason" to conclude what I've concluded. Quite frankly, I have every reason to believe as I do and no reason to believe any differently.
Jack
Jack since this thread isn't about animal emotions per say, we will have to debate this on another thread.Are you saying you can't tell when a dog is happy? Sad? Pissed off? Guilty? Nervous? Etc.?
Got news for ya: those are emotions
But as far as a dog being driven because they destroy their hardware in pursuit of "freeing" themselves from a chain as you say is, well, kind of silly in my opinion.
And I can't be convinced that an animal who relentlessly chews on hard metal chain links breaking all of their teeth which they need for survival is smart. That is the complete opposite as I see it. (I know dogs can survive without teeth) But in the wild, how many predators are toothless and thriving
I do have very spirited dogs who are very animated and demand my attention though, but without the self destructive behavior.
I just see no point in keeping these self destructive dogs around, it's a waste of money and sanity for me personally. But take no issue with those who enjoy those types of dogs, different strokes for different folks.
S_B
You kids should play nice or somebody is gonna start crying.
OkayJack since this thread isn't about animal emotions per say, we will have to debate this on another thread.
Why is it silly? I have seen dogs lift their chain up off a nail that it was hooked on.
Is it silly to say the dog freed itself there too, or is it sillier to deny the obvious?
Again, you blur so many things in your own thinking, it's hard to carry on a discussion.And I can't be convinced that an animal who relentlessly chews on hard metal chain links breaking all of their teeth which they need for survival is smart. That is the complete opposite as I see it. (I know dogs can survive without teeth) But in the wild, how many predators are toothless and thriving
I don't think dogs think that far into the future. I think dogs have basic, simple thoughts ... not complex ones.
Dogs have a basic want to be free ... or ... they have a basic want to be with their owner.
But I don't think dogs ever consider the long-term ramifications of repeated hole-digging, or root-tugging, on their teeth
Most of mine are like that too.
Hold on, I never said I "enjoyed" that type of dog ... far from it.
I too prefer tractable, low-maintenance dogs.
Silverback, for example, was a great keeper: never chewed a damned thing.
Never shit or pissed in the house. Never ate out of the trash can. Never chewed up shoes or anything else.
BY FAR, I wish all of my dogs were like Silverback (in a lot of other ways besides being a great companion and house dog) ... but what I am saying is I would not **kill** a dog who's destructive without first giving him a fair shake as an adult. Frosty said he did that, gave them a fair shake, which is the way it should be.
I don't know how this basic, simple premise got confounded into "I prefer hard-keepers," but that is far from what I said. One guy said he'd get rid of dogs with no teeth ... and I pointed out some incredibly bad-ass dogs with no teeth ... to AGAIN stress the point of NOT making decisions based on "teeth" ... or how hard they are to keep ... but on the merit of the dog.
This topic is about hard keepers.
My point is that hard keepers are sometimes GREAT dogs.
Everyone wants to come on here and say, "All their hard keepers weren't shit," well okay then, maybe so.
Or maybe they never really gave those dogs a truly fair shake ...
Regardless, bottom line is I've named some pretty badass dogs that WERE hard keepers and WERE freaking awesome dogs. Maybe my Icon dog was never matched, but Zukill and Robert T Jr. certainly were ... and the owner of Robert T Jr. called my Icon dog "Baby Robert T," so I assure you he was a helluva dog. Not sure how many of you have had 6xWinners that killed everything in under an hour, or 4xWs who beat four 4xWs (like Zuk and T Jr.), so these dogs were surely worth keeping in spite of not having teeth. That was my point.
IMO anyone who culls for anything other than performance is making questionable decisions.
At that point "an enjoyable yard" becomes a priority over unbiased analysis of the animals on that yard, which then opens-up a Pandora's Box of "what are we breeding for, then?"
Of course, as you pointed out, that is any man's prerogative on his own yard.
I have gladly sold some pretty annoying dogs myself. Sold, not killed.
MY point is, I would never shoot and kill a dog over its being annoying.
I would allow him to mature and give him a fair shake as an adult, before I ever made such a decision.
That is a far cry from saying I "prefer" annoying-ass dogs ... what I said was that some of my very best dogs were pretty fucking annoying
Jack
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
