Cultural Differences

ORIGINAL: jones


And then, what he compared them to: village dogs. I don't think you can use village dogs as a "healthy dog" model without provoking the question of whether dogs should be family pets. Living in a home with people requires more of a dog - in terms of certain behaviors, some of them 'unnatural' for the dog - than does a life on the street. The inside dog simply has a steeper learning curve. So at its root it's an unfair comparison.

I personally would not like to see a return to the mindset where dogs are semi-dispensible livestock, to be shipped off or killed anytime they are not making the grade either behaviorally or health-wise. I think the modern care and keeping of dogs is more demanding of them, and therefore more susceptible to conflict and problems, but I think it's worth the extra trouble and education for dog and human alike.

 
Great post and I completely agree.  Is there a point at which we demand too much?  Is it possible to over-domesticate dogs?

I can't comment on anything other American dogs personally, because I've rarely been out of the country. []
 
I have some pretty strong feelings about how dogs are treated and even eaten in some cultures and countries according to some reading I've done and a few documentaries. But, to them it's perfectly normal and I must seem strange.
 
There's one thing I've really noticed since I was a kid in the early sixties (yep, I'm old).
 
Things were very different then. Many moms stayed home with the kids and dogs during the day. I remember a few of my friend's moms working a bit part-time, but now it takes two incomes for the average family to even make ends meet.
 
The dogs and kids had a "leader" on hand back then, compared to today, at least in my neighborhood. There were dogs and kids everywhere. Always a neighbor's dog running around to keep you company. Of course back then there were few leash laws, puppies were given away in front of grocery stores, and there was usually only a one way ticket to the pound if you were a stray.
 
There were a lot of strays back then. I kept bringing them home, and dad kept taking them to the pound. We had one family dog which was a collie (the days of Lassie) and dad said one was enough... []
 

ORIGINAL: jones

I personally think it's worthwhile to keep in mind that Cesar Millan was somewhere around 18-20 years old when he came to the US. People that age can certainly have valuable ideas, but they can also be dogmatic, prejudicial, and inexperienced... I wouldn't lend too much credence to any Big Ideas I had at 19 nor that Cesar Millan or anyone has had, at least as far as they relate to objective, observable truths.

Going to the specific comparisons that Millan was making, he was measuring US pet dogs - most likely the ones he groomed or walked for cash - to village dogs in Mexico. First you have to take into account the nature of type of dog he was working with... this was by necessity either 1) a dog in a grooming shop, and we all know that even some great dogs aren't great at the groomers, and 2) a dog he was hired to walk, which one can reasonably assume belongs to a family that at a minimum doesn't have time to walk the dog. So, not the most balanced sampling to begin with.

And then, what he compared them to: village dogs. I don't think you can use village dogs as a "healthy dog" model without provoking the question of whether dogs should be family pets. Living in a home with people requires more of a dog - in terms of certain behaviors, some of them 'unnatural' for the dog - than does a life on the street. The inside dog simply has a steeper learning curve. So at its root it's an unfair comparison.

I personally would not like to see a return to the mindset where dogs are semi-dispensible livestock, to be shipped off or killed anytime they are not making the grade either behaviorally or health-wise. I think the modern care and keeping of dogs is more demanding of them, and therefore more susceptible to conflict and problems, but I think it's worth the extra trouble and education for dog and human alike.

I understand, however i know what he is talking about because i have been in both places and he is right, village dogs are the most balanced but even if you only compare Mexico's dogs that live in the city with American Dogs you still see a big difference between that amount of behavioral problems both have

On one hand, in America, you get excellent healthcare for your dog, medications, procedures that in other cultures would be discarded as 'over the top' - not for a dog, etc. Also, of course, neat looking leashes, little coats and a variety of chew-sticks and toys. On the other hand, when I am in the US, I sometimes feel apologetic when my dog does something doggy-like... Something I would NEVER feel sorry about visiting my family in Russia. And I hate it. I don't know what it is that makes me want to strip that "dog is s dog" layer off... Maybe I am scared of being sued [8|] (I have been told by a woman in an elevator that my dog barks. I thought the old woman was gonna continue saying something meaningful but that was it: "Your dog barks." Emm. Yes, as a matter of fact dogs bark...)
Also, it's not that in these *other* cultures people are so conscious and educated of the dogs' needs. It's just that the needs of the people are a priority... hence there is this more of a "primal" relationship with dogs that people have. My grand parents' neighbor was upset that their dog wouldn't bark... I mean, that's only in Russia I have seen that being an issue. People are not afraid of being sued there. There are tons of mixed-breeeds, no shelters, lots of strays, lots of polite and content dogs off leash, lots of barking, hardly any fixed dogs, lots of 'traditional' trainers (including my dad), and together with that, and what I like, people don't feel like they should train every "negative" trait out of your dog... I haven't noticed that need to shape a 'dog of your dreams': "She is a barker" "That one is kind" "This guy is protective, be careful", etc. It's weird... totally different attitude.

TinaK, you echo thoughts I was having as well. In Australia, there's a definite dichotomy between working dogs and pet dogs. Working dogs are treated much differently to pets as a general rule. I think working dogs don't tend to have problems, but then, for all I know, every working dog with a problem is shot because no farmer can afford to keep an unreliable dog. People want to do everything they can for their pet dogs, but while a good working dog is also a best friend and worth ten men on horses, there's not much room in the world of a primary producer for bad working dogs, or even working dogs that might need a little extra help. They might be treated the way dogs are 'supposed' to be treated, but working dogs have to make it on their own to a large extent, to. How could you say one life is better than the other? Or one life is better for dogs than the other? 

I have restless leg syndrome and it's no joking matter. Although it comes and goes, it's still very real and is very miserable.
 
Dogs develop behavioral problems when we attempt to 'humanize' them, to be what we want them to be. Dogs are animals and no matter how beautiful, how smart, how fast, how 'human' some appear to be, they are still animals.
When we bring them into our lives, we need to have a complete understanding of dog psychology, dynamics of a pack and the primal needs of a dog. We need dogs, they don't need us. There wouldn't be Behavioral Specialists if humans didn't create behavioral issues for dogs.
When I was a young girl, my family aquired a dog and it lived outside 24/7. It was fed table scraps and canned dog food, had no health check ups, wasn't neutered and had zero training. The dog roamed the neighborhood at will impregnating any female dogs in heat and fighting with all male rivals. The dog was covered in fleas and ticks and one day he came home all torn up from a fight and had to be put down. I won't share with you just how his life ended. My parents were ignorant of how to care for a dog because they were raised on a farm and all the farm dogs were treated the same way as our family dog.
Even though this was long ago, I still see dogs living this way.
I occasionally watch Animal Precinct and it's appalling how people have such disregard for animals they are suppose to care for.I wish there were more people like Cesar Millan who appears to truly love dogs and honestly wants all dogs to just be a dog. When I watch his shows I see him trying very hard trying to make the dog owners 'get it'. You can just see the look on the dog owner's faces that some just don't. Probably never will.

Many of you are much younger than I, but I remember the time, before leash laws, when people did have their dogs following them everywhere.  The dogs were much more social.  But, of course, some also got into trouble.  We tend to think of an entire culture based on what we see in one instance, or one location.  But, as we know, dogs in Massachusetts are treated differently than dogs in Georgia, and dogs in California are treated differently than dogs in Idaho.  We also have dogs that sit politely under tables here - therapy dogs and service dogs.  Sioux spent 2 hours under a table at a Lions Club meeting with me - I was the speaker, so I couldn't leave.  She just bided her time, and then got up and did the whole show just like always.  So, if any of you had seen that, would you say "Wow, those Americans are really cool - their dogs behave at dinner"?  I have a friend who has relatives in Italy, and she cannot believe how some Italians treat their dogs (it isn't the bistro scene).  So, I'm sure that dogdom varies depending on the area, the local culture, etc.  It varies from city to city here...in New York, you don't walk down the sidewalk in Manhattan without seeing lots of dogs.  (There is also a flip side to "Animal Precinct" - some NY'ers love dogs and treat them well.) But, in Boston, where "no pets" is more common, there are fewer dogs in public in the downtown area.

 eople in the USA ________________(fill in the blanket statement).
 
Using a broad paintbrush to describe a whole country, which is by the way a rather large number of cultures,....is rather naive.
 
It is one of those things where the more that you know, the more you realize that you know even less.
 
 
 

Big accolade to jones and dogslife, brilliant posts [sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

Having never lived in Mexico, I can only speculate.
 
Are the majority of dogs in Mexico either farm/working dogs or "village dogs"? To me, this would indicate that most of the dogs there have a job to do, be it working, herding, surviving. There are probably less "just a pet" type dogs over there (speculation).
 
So as a result I would think less of the dogs there are bored/under exercised.

Are the majority of dogs in Mexico either farm/working dogs or "village dogs"? To me, this would indicate that most of the dogs there have a job to do, be it working, herding, surviving. There are probably less "just a pet" type dogs over there (speculation).

Well, I think that the "distribution" of working dogs/pet dogs/ stray dogs, is like this in mexico: the vast mayority of dogs are either pets or strays, "working dogs" as we know them here are really few and far in between. My family has a few properties and dogs are used as guard dogs but that's about it. I've been to ranches and farms, and some have purebreed dogs(as guard dogs), others just have dogs that "hang out " there. I was in a cattle ranch once and it surprised me that they didn't used herding dogs at all.

Another interesting fact is that in Mexico when you say that your dog is "trained" the first thing that comes to people's mind is an attack dog, you say obedience traning and most people don't really get what you're talking about. I remember when I took my dog to our first obedience class, there was ONE trainer I could find where I used to live (a city with about .9 million people), so in most cases training you dog is percieved as something that the rich and eccentric people do. Sure there's a few french ring and mondio clubs, but again, the members are upper class, not JQP.

There is a whole bunch of strays, that have learned to in most cases be around people without really interacting with them, and whose main job is to survive. I have seen on ocassion dogs hanging out with homeless people, one case in particular is a man that lives (or used to) where my parents live that was always surrounded by 10-15 dogs, and they looked...well.. happy.
The couple that did odd jobs at my parents' house usually had a couple of dogs hanging out in their place, but that was pretty much it, hanging out without any percievable purpose.

The one thing I have noticed is that according to my family, my life revolves around my dog (that's partially my mom pestering us to have kids, but that's another story), you should've seen the look i got from my parents when I mentioned the behaviourist thing. The idea that someone pays "too much" attention to a dog, i.e. training excercises, and generally focusing on the dog is commonly seen as eccentric. So yes, there is a lot less "humanizing" of dogs. As long as your dog is fed and vaccinated, there's not much else to taking care of him/her.

Define "blanaced" in a way that applies to all dogs in all situations everywhere.

A dog who is living as a semi-feral scavenger of course isn't going to be having any "behavior problems". A behavior problem is defined by how other idividuals perceive what you're doing. If I lived on a mountain top far from anyone else and decided to, at 3 AM, get out of bed, run outside, and jump up and down screaming at the top of my lungs, that's not a behavior problem. If I did that where I live in the city, it most definately would be. Village dogs fight, they defend territory, they pee and poop anywhere they want, they eat what they want, they go where they want, they don't follow any commands. Often, they aren't even part of a pack--pack behavior is not universal among village dogs. But any of those things would be considered a "behavior problem" from a dog living in a house with a family. What we ask of dogs living with us is not natural to them. It is natural for them to be around humans and be generally non-aggressive towards us, and even to enjoy our company. But refraining from pooping on the kitchen floor is not natural to a dog.

ORIGINAL: dogslife

 eople in the USA ________________(fill in the blanket statement).

Using a broad paintbrush to describe a whole country, which is by the way a rather large number of cultures,....is rather naive.

It is one of those things where the more that you know, the more you realize that you know even less.

 
When you move in to a different country you start doing what that people does, you still have your roots but you start acting like the people in the country where you live, it does not matter if you are Mexican , Italian, Russian, etc
 
So yes i can fill the blank part with "humanize dogs"

I think this in itself is humanizing dogs and seeing them as children.  We pretty much know that it is not healthy to give a child excess material goods.

I am not sure materialism has the ability to corrupt dogs.

To a dog, dads old torn sock works just as well as a 10.00 tug toy from petco.

Quote: I think that in USA people has the economic level to give more and that includes pets, i'm talking about toys, kennels, better and more expensive food, doggy beds, doggy steps, etc. In USA there is more chance to be "spoiled".

ORIGINAL: JM

I think this in itself is humanizing dogs and seeing them as children.  We pretty much know that it is not healthy to give a child excess material goods.

I am not sure materialism has the ability to corrupt dogs.

To a dog, dads old torn sock works just as well as a 10.00 tug toy from petco.

Quote: I think that in USA people has the economic level to give more and that includes pets, i'm talking about toys, kennels, better and more expensive food, doggy beds, doggy steps, etc. In USA there is more chance to be "spoiled".

I think you do have a good point there, but I also believe that all the products marketed to us as owners do make a difference at some level, although not sure how significant it is. Think of it this way, as far as the dog is concerned I think you're right, an old sock is no different than an expensive plush toy. BUT think of it from you're end, you already spent the $10 or whatever on the toy and you'r dog would rather chew on a pillow in our case, well, you go out and get yet another $10 toy, and another with the hopes that at some point you'll get one the dog likes. So, in reality all the products that are available are not geared torwards the dogs themselves, but at us as owners, we hope to express our love to dogs in terms of money spent on them. What kind of impact does that have on the dogs themselves?...other than more attention than they would normally get, I have not a clue.

So in that context the materialism does have an indirect impact on the dogs, thru us.