Are Owners Too Precious

[cbabe]

After reading posts on this forum and the way in which owners treat their dogs i would like to ask if any one else thinks that some owners are becoming too precious and overprotective of their dogs.

Now spoiling a dog and looking after it well is not the subject of the poll!!! So please don't vote on this principle. Let me explain......

Being brought up around dogs my whole life i have seen them do many things and they are normally very robust creatures. They bound through brambles and will pick up and eat anything they considder tasty looking (the rottern the better) with little ill affect on them.

Now considdering this - are owners of dogs now being to precious with dogs - worrying constantly about the foods they give them, what they should not give them, paniking when they eat something the normally shouldn't (even though there is no ill affect)? Being obsessive if it sneezes or has a dicky tummy one morning and running to the vet. Worrying that they sleep too much/too little, eat too much/too little, exercise too much/too little.

Most dogs can make their own mind up how much of anything they need without human intervention.

My point is that dogs survived years of evolution without our help and then they became reliant on us - are we carrying this on so soon they won't be able to survive without us wiping their buts or chewing their bland non-offensive food for them?

[Cob-Web]

My point is that dogs survived years of evolution without our help and then they became reliant on us - are we carrying this on so soon they won't be able to survive without us wiping their buts or chewing their bland non-offensive food for them?

Pedigree dogs are not the product of 'evolution' but have been selectively bred, which not only selects for 'asthetic' characteristics, but also inadvertantly for other characteristics; be it a sensitive tummy, coats that provide insufficient protection from the elements, or more seriously, joints that can be damaged in young life or predispositions to potentially life threatening conditions.

As a race, we are responsible for perpetuating these *weaknesses*; evolution would select them out through the deaths of individuals and litters which demonstrate these characteristics. We are therefore responsible for caring for the dogs that demonstrate these *weaknesses* and seeking professional help where necessary. This care would certainly be *overprotective*and unecessary if applied to a robust, wild dog.

[Tracey J]

I don't believe that Clare meant that we shouldn't care for dogs who need help, more that we shouldn't pander to them like they were helpless babies.  We all spoil our dogs in our own way but as Clare says

Now spoiling a dog and looking after it well is not the subject of the poll!!! So please don't vote on this principle.

 

[Cob-Web]

but as Clare says

Now spoiling a dog and looking after it well is not the subject of the poll!!! So please don't vote on this principle.

I haven't !

My point is that I disagree with the comment that

Most dogs can make their own mind up how much of anything they need without human intervention

If this were the case, we wouldn't be advised not to give them milk, or not exercise them to much when they are young - as they would self regulate and not do anything that would lead to illness or damage.

[Kim]

Pedigree dogs are not the product of 'evolution' but have been selectively bred, which not only selects for 'asthetic' characteristics, but also inadvertantly for other characteristics; be it a sensitive tummy, coats that provide insufficient protection from the elements, or more seriously, joints that can be damaged in young life or predispositions to potentially life threatening conditions.

 

I disagree, dogs ARE a product of evolution, breeds may not be.
Are you telling me that left to evolve naturally, dogs would not have any problems, I don't think so. You only have to watch any wildlife program to see defects in animals crop up on a regular basis, which will lead to their demise at a young age.
I would hope, that as breeders we aim to breed out the weaknesses.
JMHO

[Cob-Web]

Are you telling me that left to evolve naturally, dogs would not have any problems, I don't think so. You only have to watch any wildlife program to see defects in animals crop up on a regular basis, which will lead to their demise at a young age.

Exactly my point; they would die at a young age before passing on any genetic weakness to their offspring - its called natural selection - only the *best* specimins for survival pass their genetic code onto off-spring.

Any *defects* in wild animals are usually the result of either damage in the womb or soon after birth; or spontaneous genetic mutation at the time of conception, which is not passed from generation to generation. Few, if any inherited conditions that have an impact on an animals ability to survive are present for more than a generation or so at most.

I would hope, that as breeders we aim to breed out the weaknesses

I have read articles by experienced breeders who recognise that it is impossible to prevent weaknesses occuring in any highly selected breeding programme; especially when some breeds originate from no more than 20 or so founding animals. To breed weaknesses out would, in some cases, breed out the very traits that are breed standards. I don't disagree with selecting for breed traits necessarily, unless it is to excess, but strongly believe that we have a responsibility to accomodate the outcomes; by controlling diet, providing a manufactured coat or limiting exercise at a young age -  the very things that Clare refers to when she asks if we are "too precious".
 

[Tracey J]

I thought that the point Clare was trying to put across was that some of the forum threads have been along the lines of "OMG a big bad doggie looked at my poor defenceless little doggie the wrong way today, will he be scarred for life?" sort of thing (highly exaggerated of course ), instead of letting the dogs get on with it in their own doggy way (without obviously putting the dogs in the path of any danger!)

Then again, I may be completely wrong , hopefully Clare will be along to correct me if that's the case

[PennyB]

I thought that the point Clare was trying to put across was that some of the forum threads have been along the lines of "OMG a big bad doggie looked at my poor defenceless little doggie the wrong way today, will he be scarred for life?" sort of thing (highly exaggerated of course ), instead of letting the dogs get on with it in their own doggy way (without obviously putting the dogs in the path of any danger!)

 

Well that's the way I saw it as well

[Magic Star]

Hmm I'm not so sure where this topic is going?  So apologies if I have misunderstood this thread

Claire, are you suggesting that we mollycoggle our dogs too much?  I thought our job as pet owners is to look after our animals, to give them a healthy, caring atmosphere for them to live in?  Lets face it, things have changed over the years, from an age when dogs were left to roam the streets and were often kept outside in an outdoor kennel, personally, I would see no point in having a dog, if we were to go back to that     My dog is a member of my family, shes not a working dog or a wild dog, her breed as with most breeds has been well and truly domesticated, I would not hesitate in treating her preciousley anything less just isn't good enough  

[Shirley]

I'm not sure if I've understood the topic either.  Just wanted to say, yes I spoil my dogs.  They get plenty of treats, they get the comfiest seat in the house and  they're allowed to get as mucky as they like when out on walks.  But in return they listen to me whinge and moan when I've had a bad day and they act as if I'm the most improtant person in the world every single time I walk through the door, so they deserve to be spoilt.  They're happy and I'm happy so I think I'll just continue to spoil them     I'm sure everyone on here is the same  

[padfoot]

I think I know what you mean Clare. I don't think it does dogs actual harm if they are mollycoddled so each to their own. My dogs are allowed on the furniture and have lots of toys etc, but I don't think they are mollycoddled. I know people who give their dogs a cup of tea every morning or feed them warm drinks or buy them "clothes"...it doesn't really offend me what other people choose to do with their dogs..but it's not the way I would choose to treat my own dogs.

[Shirley]

Maybe Morgan and Cooper aren't as spoilt as my family claim they are?!!!  They don't have any clothes and they've never tried tea other than a sneaky sip from a discarded cup     Mind you an essential item on the weekly shopping bill is a packet of ham and large tin of hot dog sausages for the boys   .

[cbabe]

I thought that the point Clare was trying to put across was that some of the forum threads have been along the lines of "OMG a big bad doggie looked at my poor defenceless little doggie the wrong way today, will he be scarred for life?" sort of thing (highly exaggerated of course ), instead of letting the dogs get on with it in their own doggy way (without obviously putting the dogs in the path of any danger!)

Then again, I may be completely wrong , hopefully Clare will be along to correct me if that's the case

TraceyJ has got exactly what i meant!!! (thank you)
i am just as guilty for spoiling my 4 rotten they sleep on the bed and sit on the sofa!! All owners should care for and provide for their dog - keep them safe etc. But are some owners going  far beyond this to an unhealthy extreme?!

This poll is about being 'too precious'. Ie paniking at the slightest thing that doggy does which is slightly out of the normal and (yes) pandering to them like they are helpless babies (which i think is insulting to an intelegent breed like dogs!!) ''oh my little doggy woggy can't eat the horrid doggie din dins he likes mommys yummy steak don't you doggy woggy!'

Iwlass - read it again - they can decide HOW MUCH of something they need - ie sleep, their dinner. It does not say WHAT! (and a little side note - ours have had cows milk for years and they are still yapping and bounding around - it is just not suitable for some dogs)

As for evolution - read it again - They evolved for years without our help - THEN we got involved!!!! If you don't think they evolved where did they come from?? the cabbage patch?

[Gilly]

I understood what Clare meant   But don't really understand the point.

I am sure in some way or another we all mollycoddle our dogs. Some more than others but i prefer to use the word "love"  
I also think it depends on your dogs personality to, some dogs love being mollycoddled others don't. Is Buttons mollycoddled, probably, more in some ways than others  
She doesn't get human food, cups of tea, milk or the likes, it's always dog food unless there are leftovers she can get those providing she's eaten her own food first. I don't worry if she get's wet or dirty, she doesn't wear a coat and I don't buy fancy dog equipment.

At the end of the day she loves me and I love her back, end of story. She is a member of my family and if that means she is mollycoddled then YES SHE IS AND SHE DESERVES IT    

[cbabe]

Gilly you molly coddle (from your description ) - but from what i have seen of your posts you are not guilty of being 'too precious!'