What makes a bad owner?

ORIGINAL: whippetsownme

My point is, I have a standard for MYSELF about how dogs should live, and if I am going to have dogs, that is how they are going to live, even if I have to sacrifice some "petty" things like nice outfits and nights out drinking.

My original post states CLEARLY that I don't think people who don't do what I do are BAD owners. Just not ideal in MY opinion.

My list of "bad owner" things nearly everyone in this thread agrees with (overweight dogs, no grooming, no vet care, living outside, etc)

 
Don't get me wrong I think it is great that you set yourself a standard for how you care for your dogs and I have no doubt that you are a wonderful dog owner. It's just some of your posts seem quite judgmental of other owners even though you may not intend to be.
The above comment about 'petty' things for example. For some people these things aren't petty, it's life. I think that you can be an excellent dog owner and still have a life of your own. And if you feel that these things are so petty then it's not a sacrifice at all for you is it, so why bring it up in the first place?
This thread was started with the question what makes a bad owner not what an ideal owner is. I guess I just find it hard to understand how you could have so many prerequisites for someone to be an ideal or model owner or for that matter how you could define yourself as one.

I can see what you're saying, and it's not how I meant to come off. That's also why petty was in quotes. Another poster (Edie, I think) agreed with me and seems to understand what my original post was saying.
 
As for the going out, etc...
 
To ME those things are petty compared to giving my dogs the best of everything. Dogs are my hobby, passion, life, number one interest, reason for being... etc, etc. My petty money is spent on dog shows and the occasional 12 pack of Natty Ice, not nights out on the town. I'd happily give up dog shows if I had a hard time moneywise in order to continue to feed raw and take the pups to dog class every week for their one on one training time.
 
Some of my picky sounding requirements are from years of placing rescues. I DO NOT require some things that many rescues do- for example, I place dogs with families who have no yard/no fence, work all day, have small kids, rent, are low income... and some of them are WONDERFUL homes by nearly anyone's standards and yet a rescue turned them down over no fence or because they have a two year old. I get a lot of great homes around here for Goldens because my local GR rescue sends away families with toddlers a lot- Greyhounds too. I have a constant word of mouth stream of adopters looking for a Greyhound because they have no fence and the big groups turned them down. I send them to the group that I know will evaluate them fairly []
 
I certainly don't require people adopting one of my dogs to feed raw or EVO, but I absolutely suggest it and the true fact that one medium sized dog eating EVO doesn't cost much more than one dog the same size eating Pedigree, since you can feed as little sometimes as half the amount of a super quality food. If a few dollars week in dog food makes that much difference, reconsider owning a dog, perhaps? I wanted to point out that "less than ideal" is not always BAD- that was my intention anyway in my original post. I listed what qualifies as bad to me, and got no argument from anyone. I'm certainly passionate when it comes to dogs and a few other things (lets not discuss the war LOL).
 
For the sake of convo, I do make adopters sign a contract stating I take the dog back if they cannot keep it, if I find out it lives outside, if it is chained/tied... and they must give heartworm prevention and keep the dog on flea control. If somebody doesn't like those things, they can walk away. I definitely know money isn't everything, and I have placed dogs in homes that are GREAT that cannot feed the dog the way I would. It's all about weighing the odds when selecting the perfect home for one of your foster pups.
 
When I said model dog owner, I said it pointing out that people with no fence and little money can still be great dog owners- for example myself and doubtless many other apartment/condo dwellers on this forum. My point being if one is willing to MAKE her dogs a priority, then things like a lack of a yard and a lack of money will not stop her from doing so.

I agree with many of the items listed so far.  I would also include..
Bad Owners
1) Those that mutilate their dogs by cutting off their tails and cropping ears because they look cute, mean whatever that way. I understand many people had no choice as the breeder did this and I do not blame them.
2)  Those that get dogs purely for shows or breeding and get rid of them after they no longer have use for them.

ORIGINAL: whippetsownme

I can see what you're saying, and it's not how I meant to come off. That's also why petty was in quotes. Another poster (Edie, I think) agreed with me and seems to understand what my original post was saying.
 
Ah, light bulb. I picked you up wrong in your other posts and for that I apologise. I saw the quotes on petty as something negative. It can be so hard at times to pick up the intentions behind what someone is saying in posts as you can't hear tone, see facial expression etc.


As for the going out, etc...

To ME those things are petty compared to giving my dogs the best of everything. Dogs are my hobby, passion, life, number one interest, reason for being... etc, etc. My petty money is spent on dog shows and the occasional 12 pack of Natty Ice, not nights out on the town. I'd happily give up dog shows if I had a hard time moneywise in order to continue to feed raw and take the pups to dog class every week for their one on one training time.
 


Some of my picky sounding requirements are from years of placing rescues. I DO NOT require some things that many rescues do- for example, I place dogs with families who have no yard/no fence, work all day, have small kids, rent, are low income... and some of them are WONDERFUL homes by nearly anyone's standards and yet a rescue turned them down over no fence or because they have a two year old. I get a lot of great homes around here for Goldens because my local GR rescue sends away families with toddlers a lot- Greyhounds too. I have a constant word of mouth stream of adopters looking for a Greyhound because they have no fence and the big groups turned them down. I send them to the group that I know will evaluate them fairly []
 


I certainly don't require people adopting one of my dogs to feed raw or EVO, but I absolutely suggest it and the true fact that one medium sized dog eating EVO doesn't cost much more than one dog the same size eating Pedigree, since you can feed as little sometimes as half the amount of a super quality food. If a few dollars week in dog food makes that much difference, reconsider owning a dog, perhaps? I wanted to point out that "less than ideal" is not always BAD- that was my intention anyway in my original post.
 
Thanks for taking the time to explain where you are coming from with your requirements. When looking at it in the context of rescues it sheds more light on your opinion and I agree with all that you have said above. 'Less than ideal' is not always bad, in fact sometimes it's pretty darn good.

For the sake of convo, I do make adopters sign a contract stating I take the dog back if they cannot keep it, if I find out it lives outside, if it is chained/tied... and they must give heartworm prevention and keep the dog on flea control. If somebody doesn't like those things, they can walk away. I definitely know money isn't everything, and I have placed dogs in homes that are GREAT that cannot feed the dog the way I would. It's all about weighing the odds when selecting the perfect home for one of your foster pups.
 
Sounds like you do great work. And are indeed really passionate about dogs and finding them suitable homes. If only more people cared so much.

When I said model dog owner, I said it pointing out that people with no fence and little money can still be great dog owners- for example myself and doubtless many other apartment/condo dwellers on this forum. My point being if one is willing to MAKE her dogs a priority, then things like a lack of a yard and a lack of money will not stop her from doing so.

 
I totally took you up wrong on the 'model dog owner' comment. I agree it's all about how willing you are to put in the work and effort and lots of love.  Thanks for taking the time to explain your earlier posts more fully, it seems like we are on the same page afterall. []

ORIGINAL: TH

I agree with many of the items listed so far.  I would also include..
Bad Owners
1) Those that mutilate thier dogs by cutting off thier tails and cropping ears because they look cute, mean whatever that way. I understand many people had no choice as the breeder did this and I do not blame them.
2)  Those that get dogs purely for shows or breeding and get rid of them after they no longer have use for them.

 
I think the word "mutiliate" is a little much.

I think the word "mutiliate" is a little much.

Perhaps it sounds bad, but it is correct usage of the word.  I am more bothered by the use of cute words like crop and dock.  Of course there are some cases where it is a medical issue and I have no problem with that.  I can also feel for the person on this board who had some unexpected puppies and little time to decide. 

From dictionary.com

mu·ti·late      /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[myoot-l-eyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing. 1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting. 2.to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

No problem! Thanks for taking the time to read that long ramble too [] I know it can be very hard to get the context of posts on the internet, and I have a way of speaking that even in person is sometimes taken the wrong way I really am a sighthound LOL I come across as a snob but I'm not!

quote:

I think the word "mutiliate" is a little much.

Perhaps it sounds bad, but it is correct usage of the word. I am more bothered by the use of cute words like crop and dock. Of course there are some cases where it is a medical issue and I have no problem with that. I can also feel for the person on this board who had some unexpected puppies and little time to decide.

From dictionary.com
quote:

mu·ti·late /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[myoot-l-eyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing. 1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting. 2.to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

 
I guess that you are against spaying and neutering also.  After all it is removing perfectly normal organs from the dogs body.
 

 Good owners care about their dogs.Great owners care and go the extra mile to educate themselves on their breed and on training and care.
 
 Somone mentioned ear and tail crops as being bad, I disagree. Home crops are bad but if you love a breed and prefer it as it is most commonly seen (like a doberman) then you are not bad because you choose to crop your pups ears.
 
 Feed your dog what you can afford to feed, if it happens to be a grocery store brand that does NOT make you a bad owner.
 
 The most important factor is that the owner should have a genuinue love for their dog. If your dog is your companion then you will feed him the best that you can, you will try and solve the problems that may come up and you will get him the medical treatment that you can afford and you will do your best to make sure he is comfortable and safe.
 
 
 
 

I do not like the practice of cropping and docking, either. However, I wouldn't say it makes a bad dog owner.
 
Nor would I say that placing a dog in a home to be a beloved, spoiled, only dog after completing its titles is bad either. Keeping 20 dogs in crates is infinitely worse... letting them go gives the owner's other dogs AND the dog in question more attention.

I guess that you are against spaying and neutering also.  After all it is removing perfectly normal organs from the dogs body

Spaying and neutering prevents unwanted pregancies...for the people too irresponsible to keep their dogs under control whilst in heat,or for male dog owners if a female in the near vicinity is in heat.Spaying and neutering can also prevent some health problems.Spaying females will prevent them going through the frustration of heat after heat without being mated.ALthough i fully disagree with spaying/neutering before dogs are fully mature,and i have nothing against responsible dog owners keeping intact dogs.My point is that there is a point in spaying and neutering.

However the point of cropping and docking is purely for asthetic(sp?) reasons and serves no purpose to the dog,it is done purely for the owners sake.

Docking,cropping,debarking,declawing amongst other things done purely for the human are banned in many countries.

I think there are A LOT of factors that go into dog ownership and each situation is different. IMO it's a slippery slope for people to sit on their high horse and judge exactly how other people are bad owners.

Docking,cropping,debarking,declawing amongst other things done purely for the human are banned in many countries.

 
So what.  They also ban breeds in other countries.  Should we do that here just because it is done elsewhere.
 

******Request from the OP******

Guys, I think this thread has run its course. Thank you very much for all your thoughtful responses. I think by now everyone who wanted to has gotten a chance to express his or her opinion, so I think the useful life of this thread is now gone. What do you say we call it quits and let it die in dignity?

Thanks []

Sorry if it was inflammatory - that was never my intention. I think everyone here is a "good" dog owner, or at the very least is the best owner possible given their situations!

So what. They also ban breeds in other countries. Should we do that here just because it is done elsewhere.

But we arent talking about breeds here... I think if whole governments,dog associations et al of other civilised countries ban these things because they are deemed as cruel and unecessary then maybe,just maybe they might be on to something and other countries should stand up and take notice.??

The US isnt exactly well known for it's animal friendliness and welfare..