Human: The Yard Animal
I had a conversation with a friend yesterday. She wanted to get a dog but lives in a small studio apartment. Also, she was very surprised that one of her neighbors has a Great Dane. "They must be living on top of each other", she commented.
I told her that dogs really dont need a lot of room, they are cubbyhole dwelling animals, they love finding a cozy little spot and curling up with a good bone.
She then said that she doesn't have a yard; "the dog needs a yard to run around in". She added.
I thought this point was worth closer examination.
Do dogs really need a yard?
Most people believe that dogs need a yard. Now dont get me wrong, if you have one you might consider letting your dog use it, however, you should also consider the fact that yard-dwelling dogs are likely to develop territorial aggression, incessant barking and gate-charging behavior. Which led me to start thinking about who is the yard really for?
This is my conclusion.
The yard is NOT for dogs, its for humans.
Its easy(er) for us to put our dogs in the back yard and let them do whatever. This way we dont feel so bad for not taking them on a walk which is what they (dogs) really need and want.
So to all you apartment dwelling humans, not having a yard and taking your dog for a nice, long walk instead is in fact preferable.
Say 15-30 minutes in the morning and 30-45 minutes in the evening.
You might not like it, but your dog needs a walk more then he needs a yard.
On weekends, I would recommend longer walks and more time-in overall with your dog.
What else do humans rationalize in our minds and say "oh, its for the dog" that isn't?
I think grooming is another such delusion humans engage in.
We think that bathing a dog, clipping the dog's nails and whatever else they do at the dog salon benefits the dog somehow.
At best, we are compensating for lack of long walks (a natural nail trimmer for dogs) and since we are a "clean" culture having a filthy dog would result in our inability to cohabitate; which brings up an interesting question.
Dont get me wrong. Whatever we can do to make ours and the dog's existence better, happier, smoother, etc., I'm all for it. But next time you think you are doing something for your dog, ask yourself.
Am I doing this because it benefits me somehow?
Trace your rational thought back in your brain and it will no doubt lead to an emotion. What emotion did you discover?
We all know which emotions are good and which ones are bad, so make it good.
Can you think of the time when you rationalized your actions to make it seem you’re benefiting someone else; when in fact, it was benefiting you in some way?
Related Posts:
Comments 32 Comments
Dogs (and other canid species) as well as most other animals, have effective means of "bathing" themselves. They shed, roll in dirt and worse.
But I think you asked an interesting question S. What about ticks, fleas and tangled hair?
Well, ticks jump on dogs because dogs smell like dogs. Which is why dogs will roll in waste, dirt, whatever. Remember in Predator when Arnold Schwarzenegger covered himself with dirt so that the alien couldn't "see" him? Same thing lol
Humans are bothered by fleas, dogs not so much.
Tangled hair is another strictly human concern. Dogs could care less about their tangled hair.
I want to drive the point of the article home. Im not suggesting we stop bathing our dogs, but lets be honest who are we doing all this for.
Perhaps once we are honest with ourself we will balance our needs with dog's needs little bit better. I hope :-)
About the dewclaws...have you ever seen an in-grown one? Growing up I dont remember any dogs getting them done nor do I seem to recall it being an issue.
This is the problem with accepting "common knowledge" from "experts". Let me try and make my case on the fly here...:-)
A vet is likely to recommend a removal. Its a procedure he can charge money for AND he feels justified since all he ever sees are damaged dewclaws (otherwise no trip to the vet is necessary).
What the vet doesnt see are billions of dogs using their dewclaws. Many working dogs use them without an issue. Is this an example of catering to the lowest common denominator perhaps?
I was watching the Daily Show the other day and John Stewart mentioned a 15 ft fence that exists now on every overpass because some kid tossed a watermelon off it back in the 70s. He was saying that we are legislating to the lowest common denominator. Same thing could be happening to declaws.
I will consent that there seems to be differing levels of usefulness between the rear and front at least from our human perspective. On the other hand, I know at least one breed (Great Pyrenees) that is required to have intact dewclaws so even if we are advocating the removal how come we aren't consistent?
I dont claim to know the right answer but I think its time we raise questions we believe got answered long time ago. Perhaps the answers we were given are not useful to dogs and in many cases not useful to humans.
Now...dont get me started on tails and ears...:-)
As for claws, I think running on pavement will wear the main claws down, but the dew claws will typically need trimming once in a while. If there are no rocks nor pavement, just dirt, then the main claws may also need trimming.
As for ticks, there is some disagreement, but many feel the things that attract ticks are carbon dioxide emissions, body heat, color, and movement. Ticks jump on dirty stinky dogs as well as clean freshly washed dogs. However, a good wash can help to remove excessive fleas and ticks. I once rescued a kitten that had hundreds of fleas. It was too young for other flea treatments and so I had to kill them via baths. Animals kept in small dens and not able to relocate often and around many other animals and flea carriers that transmit the problem certainly do suffer and in fact can become anemic if humans do not intervene. When the grass in my area is high in the spring, a dog can collect 20 ticks in an hour and hundreds of fleas in a few days. Make no mistake, this is miserable for the dog if not dealt with by the human. The animals have fleas and ticks on every millimeter of their skin if the human does not intervene.
However, with my situation of having a somewhat short haired breed who is already on spot treatment for fleas and ticks and with no major allergy issues, my dog would not need a bath for any health reason and only needs occasional dew claw trims. However, care requirements vary by breed. For instance, sharpei dogs must have daily skin cleaning in the folds of the skin to avoid infection. Many dog breeds are reliant on humans for their health.
I had to go back and re-read the original post to see what my point was lol
I think my first point was that keeping a dog locked up in the back yard is not responsible dog ownership; and thats regardless of how large the yard might be. Admittedly, Im hardly the first to pint this out :-)
The other point was that incessant grooming is for the most part (but not entirely)
A) Trying to compensate for something thats lacking in dog's life (long walks for example)
B) Problem of our own making (like you said, we bred some of these dogs to need us for grooming)
The overall point however, is that we (humans) are able to rationalize many (or all?) of these things thereby covering up the real reason. Which is that we suck. lol
I'll give you one example of humans "sucking" :-)
I've been so busy writing a book, as well as the book proposal, in addition to several blogs that I have going that here I am, telling everybody else what do with their dogs and neglecting mine.
The other day, my dog was looking at me and I can hear him thinking "Hey human!!! Get off the computer and take me out...you are boring me garrr: lol
I hope that makes some kind of sense :-)
I never gave much thought to the dewclaws with my last 4 dogs because they were all professionally groomed. My last 2 – a Sheltie/Pom mix and a Husky – were such fuzzy wuzzies that I decided to learn dog grooming to save money but still never had to contend with dewclaws. I recently adopted a Pit Mix and I couldn’t help but notice her dewclaws because they just hang there – literally. I questioned whether they were even attached to her by more than just skin but since she had nails on them I figured it was all kosher. She gets walked plenty so her nails rarely ever need clipping so by the time I checked them, her dewclaws were on the verge of growing inward so…yeah I have almost seen an in-grown nail in a dewclew. In fact the curl of the actual claw made it difficult to clip. I do not advocate any removal whatsoever unless there is an immediate medical condition which would warrant it.
There is such a thing as over grooming however basic grooming is very necessary with many domesticated dogs because they are bred with long hair and while an occasional tangle here and there may not be a problem, typically those tangles evolve into mats and most people don’t know how to handle the mats. When I was grooming in the shop, I saw dogs that came in matted to the point of immobilization. This is not a nice thing to do to a dog, especially if you claim to love the dog. And if anyone thinks that groomers like to groom a dog in this condition, I have yet to meet one that does, regardless of the extra cash they can charge. This is not a way most groomers want to make money.
Now let me get you started on tails and ears…..what about ‘em? : )
Before we lay that particular point to rest let me just say that dewclaw never stood a chance given the fact that its called a dee-claw; the removal is right in the name lol
Regarding tail/ears, its a heated debate as to whether it should be done or not. Many countries (England, South Africa, etc) have out-lawed cropping/docking of both.
Unfortunately its another example of trying to conform already perfect dog to some aesthetic standard. Some will talk about the practicality of having ears/tail cut but ultimately someone points to facts to invalidate those arguments.
Im wholeheartedly against it, I think its barbaric and useless. Tho I will admit that Dobies without cropped ears look like giant Beagles...not so intimidating at all lol
A yard, in a dog's mind, is simply nothing more than a large kennel. It does nothing at all to fulfill a dog's psychological need to migrate (to and from your house - it's "den") on a daily basis. This also has nothing to do with the size of the dog. It's a place to pee & poo, but also place to lounge in the sun and throw a ball around for some light exercise.
That said - a yard is fantastic to have, for the human. It's incredibly convenient and a time-saver, and that of course takes some stress away from the owner and makes owning a dog even nicer. As long as the yard does not become a substitute for daily migration walks - it's all good.
I think I'm pretty much repeating what the article above state... but anyways. :)
Craig
Do you use Twiiter? Are you on Facebook? Do you have a blog? We know very little about you Craig :-)
If you answered "yes" to any of the above, consider this an invitation to Dog Trainer 2.0 group @ http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=320464215711&ref=ts
Most people work for a living, if they didnt they wouldn't be able to afford a dog. And Im glad you are not ruling-out apartment dwelling owners. I was both and I think Im a better dog owner when living in an apartment cuz I KNOW I MUST take the pooch out for a nice run, dog park, what have you....
I have a lot of co-workers who are always asking why their dogs are having problems. When I ask if they are walking their dogs they say no I have a Chihuahua he/she doesn't need to go out. The people who take my advice and start walking their dogs (small or not) see results quickly.
The only exception to the amount is those Chinese Emperor dogs (forgot the breed's name). They were made to be lap dogs...maybe few other breeds are like that..but a vast majority, large and small, needs a walk.
Cant believe this even has to be stated but you are right...so many people confine their dogs to the back yard.
http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/what-if-we-let-dogs-roam-free
She has some wonderful ideas.
Also, we have started Shelter Reform 2010, feel free to contribute ideas http://dogandogs.com/shelter-reform-2010
The belief that a dog (particularly large breed) needs a big yard is still quite common.
We live in a very small townhouse and we have two Rottweilers. We do have a little yard, which is used only as the dogs' bathroom.
In the house, our two Rotties need only as much room as it takes for them to lay down comfortably. We take them for walks EVERY day. So at home they just hang around a wait for the next walk.
We had a discussion about this recently. I believe that apartment dogs are actually HAPPIER than most of the have-a-big-yard dogs. In our complex almost every household has a dog. How many do we see outside being taken for a walk? Guess! Even with as tiny yard as we have here people believe that throwing the dog in there is all that is needed!
People who live in apartments HAVE TO take their dogs at least around the block to go potty. So the dogs get at least those walks!
Dogs don't like being alone in the yard. They want to go for a walk with their pack.
And the size of the yard makes no difference. Our friends have a horse farm. Their dogs have the whole farm as their yard. When our guys are there, even though spending the whole day outside, they still get to go for their walks. The friends' dogs LOVE coming along for those. They are so excited about that. A walks means so much more than simply being outside or even getting exercise.
It is surprising, but I also don't think that dogs need big yards as long as they are regularly exercised.
I know a lot of large dogs who have huge yards to run around in, but all they do all day is lie around (as dogs do), and they wouldn't exercise until prompted to by their owners. I interviewed an anatolian shepherds breeder and asked him about what sized yards prospective owners needed. He gave me exactly the same answer.
I also see a lot of yard-only dog (dogs who have huge yards but never get walked) who seem to suffer from boredom and understimulation (excessive barkers, often). I really think that a dog needs some novelty to be well-balanced, and nothing replaces going out for a walk.
I have dog-sat for friends who just put their dogs in the yard and when taking their dogs for a walk, they have no doggie manners. There is no opportunity for socialization (with other dogs and other people) when a dog is just left on its own in the backyard! This is not healthy for the dog or anyone else you run into on a walk!
However, I disagree with these two points you brought up in one of your posts
"Humans are bothered by fleas, dogs not so much.
Tangled hair is another strictly human concern. Dogs could care less about their tangled hair."
Dogs are bothered by fleas because fleas cause itching which can cause sores and other discomfort. Also, fleas cause heartworms. I think dogs care about that.
Also, tangled hair is not strictly a human concern. Have you ever seen a dog's hair so tangled it couldn't walk properly and was in too much pain to turn it's own head to eat or drink? Or it couldn't urinate/poo properly so it got infections because of the caked on hair?
Some hair cuts are because the human goes to far (most poodle trims)
But general coat and skin health is a very important part of responsibly parenting a dog.
Thanks
If we look even deeper into that structure we see that humans designed the long-haired pooch er go serving human interests.
My point was to really look at who's needs are we serving...for most people,most of the time, we are serving our own needs. Peel the onion :-)
Dogs don't need space, they need love and attention from their owners.
We went on a 3 month road trip in the USA last year and she loved having the back seat to herself and staying in motels was not a problem either. My big beef are the places who accept smaller pets and not the really laid-back non-barking big ones.