Brilliant

I disagree. If a dog attacks someone its the owners fault. But it rarley happens. Just because some dogs attack doesn’t mean you take them all away. If a person in your family killed someone is it fair for the whole family to be put in jail. If we couldn’t own them there would be a lot of dog deaths. They cant live on their own and all rescues would die. If we couldn’t own dogs over 50 pounds my dog would of died she was found at a drug house and would of died if we didnt take her. She is well trained and would never hert anybody if it wasn’t for her own protection. She is a boxer so she is extremely friendly and even when she is playing wont bite or chew. She is naughty and eats shoes. When my small dog was being attacked she stepped in and tackled the other dog and still didnt bite. Just protected her best dog friend.

Because there is no ‘wild’ for a dog to go to.

Dogs are not ‘tame wolves’. They are genetically engineered to be compatible with humans. Dogs have no place in the wild. Wolves do. Dogs do not. If we take out the word ‘wild’ and replace with ‘natural habitat’, then I agree completely. Dogs should be in their natural habitat.

Thing is… uh… for a dog, their natural habitat is a human living room.

There is no such thing as a natural habitat in the ‘wild’ for a dog. They might not be the same species, but I think of dogs as belonging to the ‘human tribe’… the only other species that belongs to this tribe on that level.

They were the first domesticated animal, possibly by 10’s of thousands of years based on some new finds. They’ve never really been ‘pets’, nor ‘livestock’, but companions and partners to humans. It’s actually a very interesting relationship that is unlike anything else on the planet. Basically, having no clue what they were doing, our ancestors genetically engineered a perfect companion species to work with us… and live with us. There is no ‘wild’ for a dog, you actually can’t separate dogs from humans because dogs would simply not exist if not for their interaction with humans. They’d be wolves then. Nor, interestingly, can you really separate humans from dogs. There are no human cultures devoid of dogs. Not since at least the last ice age. They are universal to our species like language and tool making.

A dog’s natural state is to be with humans as friends, partners and companions. I am going to argue that these species belong together and both species benefit from the relationship. This is a very deep, and very old relationship. If some of the new dates are to be believed, then dogs have been hanging out with humans at least 3 times longer than any other ‘domestic’ animal.

They’ve evolved down a different path than wolves. For example, some recent studies have shown that dogs read human emotions better than any other animal… including humans. They can understand gestures as communication in ways that chimps struggle with. These are things that dogs do easily, that wolves can not do. Dogs have evolved to be able to understand us, to work with us, to live with us. It’s what makes a dog a dog and not a wolf.

I am not trying to say that dogs are ours to do with as we please. I don’t even like the term ‘owner’ when talking about my dog. He is not property, he is a friend that I consider a part of my family. But dogs exist because of the interaction between their ancestors and our ancestors which caused them to deviate from wolves. They’ve evolved to be compatible with humans and live in our world.

You want to release a dog into the wild? Get a good fire going in the fireplace and give your dog a treat to enjoy while lounging in the living room. There is a dog ‘in the wild’. Our living rooms may have changed, but even if it was an ice age hut made of hides and mammoth bones… we still had dogs curling up next to us and the fire. This is actually their natural state.

I do think we owe dogs more than a little. There are even some theories being forwarded that dogs are actually the reason we are still here… and Neanderthal is not. What kind of survival advantage did dogs grant our species? This was a complete game changer in terms of human hunting efficiency on par with the first stone tipped spears. Not even the invention of the gun had as much impact on human hunting ability. They’ve been doing a lot for our species for a very, VERY long time. And even today, they still help our species.

They can be treated better than they are. I’d like to see all shelters become ‘no kill’. I want puppy mills outlawed. I think dog abuse should carry tougher penalties and even mandatory psychological counseling.

But I don’t think driving a Golden Retriever out the middle of nowhere in a forest somewhere and releasing him into the ‘wild’ is doing that dog any favors. That’s not where they belong. A Golden Retriever belongs right where mine is… laying down next to me as I write this post.

Completely agree with you John! I live in a rural area and my dog actually found me. She is free to run around wherever she pleases. Most of the time she’s in front of the house, laying out by the sun. Sometimes she’ll run after a squirrel or with 2 other neighbor’s dogs. I’ll let her out whenever she goes to the door, let her back inside when I hear her bark. If she’s outside for a while and it’s getting dark, she always comes back around dusk. It’s her choice to come back. She’s very polite. She knows she has to be polite to get food, water, shelter, etc. She poops in the woods, like she knows it’s rude to poop by the house and we’ve never had an accident with her. In my opinion she has the best of both worlds!

I’m going to expand on the comparison of dog ownership to child rearing after I read James’ comments.

While some might argue that the goal of raising a child is to ultimately free that child into adulthood where they can think for themselves, I would like to add that children who have severe mental retardation will always need someone else to care for or look after them and they may never be able to be completely free or independent as they can only do what they want on someone else’s terms. If the “true intent” of a species is to live life as freely as they wish and a severely mentally retarded child cannot live as freely as they wish, wouldn’t their existence essentially contradict the purpose of a species to live freely? After all they are a part of a species.

I’m not judging here, but I just want to hear other people’s opinions (Yes, that includes everyone who has the right to comment here). If keeping dogs is truly “inhumane” because it denies them their freedom for life, wouldn’t raising a child with severe mental retardation (excuse my language) be considered cruel and inhumane because that child will never be free to do what they want when they want to because they want to?

I could get into really controversial territory but then I would go off topic. However, if you want me to say more, feel free to reply.