brookcove
Posted : 3/28/2008 8:14:52 AM
Becca i would have thought working/high energy dogs would be the least likely candidates for crates??
I actually think this is very relevant to this discussion. It goes to the heart of the misunderstanding that seems to exist, about what the crate's purpose is in different contexts.
The use of crates actually developed in the settings where high-energy working dogs were used. Hunting, military, protection dogs, farming. The crate offers not restraint, but a place where a dog that is bred to seek out work, demand it, desire it all the time, knows that the "work" it is expected to do in that crate, is simply rest. Once the dogs realize this, I actually have to teach them not to go in the crate unless I ask them to - because otherwise they fly into the door every time it's opened (and I might be pulling out a water bucket and smack them in mid-air).
For instance, Bet, the dog I described with the obsessive compulsive disorder, now that I've taken steps to provide an alternative behavior to the pacing behavior, will voluntarily seek out her crate if I ask her to stop pacing. She's got a plush bolstered bed in there, it's up high in a traffic area where she feels like the queen of the house, and she rests in there with the door open until it's time to work. I had to show her that option, however, before she started feeling the good of it.
Those who don't like crates think of them as "cages." Trainers and dog professionals think of them as training tools, havens from the pressures of work, and a place of safety. For pet owners it simplifies training steps that once were that cause of many a dog ending up relegated to the pound or on a chain in the backyard - potty training in particular. I can look and see that the movement of the crate into general use has paralleled the increase in "inside dogs." I so rarely hear nowadays that my medium sized Border Collies are too big and hairy to be inside dogs.
To back up a bit, none of us can say for sure what a dog thinks of crates. All we can go by is the externals. An arbitrary restriction is problematic because even Edie can think of exceptions she'd be cool with, that would be difficult to define. I can think of many others through my exposure to working situations.
How would a two hour rule apply to some of my dogs that work at airports, where they must be restrained between jobs in a truck crate? These are tremendously high-energy, prey driven dogs - I would argue that they top the scale in dogdom because of what they can accomplish. Like a sighthound, they run merely for the joy of the chase, no other reward - they don't even get the control of the stock as a reinforcer as most Border Collies get, and in fact require. Their birds must escape. Unlike the sighthound, each task can go on for an hour, always at top speed, in full-out chase mode. Then they might have to do it again in an hour, and again many more times that day.
Between jobs, they cannot have access to the runways - human lives depend on their being no room for error, and so physical restriction is necessary in spite of the very exacting training that goes into these dogs. These dogs can be stopped on a dime in full chase, but if a dog gets out when an aircraft is taking off at 300 earthbound mph, human reflexes aren't fast enough to get a command out in time to avoid disaster. The task that these dogs have, is preventing birdstrike, when birds get sucked into jet engines and cause accidents. Dogstrike would have far more tragic consequences.
People on the East Coast are welcome to tell me where they are, and I can direct you to the nearest air facility that is using a birdstrike prevention dog. Military bases in particular have open houses periodically and the birdstrike dogs are typically the highlight of the tours. You can judge for yourself whether these dogs seem unhappy or maladjusted after years of this lifestyle.
Some dogs do love the crate and I so no reason to impose the
dominant will of the owner on the dog by denying something they
absolutely love.
I think this is a really important point. I think above all, what is best for the dog must be consulted. Sometimes the dog's [/i]pleasure[/i] can't be satisfied just at first, because we can see our way to ends that will lead to greater contentment and happiness for the dog ultimately - whereas dogs only react to the feelings of the moment. I think we do our dogs a disservice if we only always think like them, rather than using our human foresight to their advantage. On the other hand, one mustn't go the opposite extreme and impose our romantic and aesthetic values on the dogs without really considering the dog's true mental and physical condition and welfare.