Most of our dogs are of very little practical purpose. Most of us don’t need our dogs to herd livestock for us. Few of us rely on our dogs’ hunting behaviors to actually feed ourselves. We don’t eat them, and we don’t even allow dogs to clean up the wastes as they once did in those hunter-gather camps of yore.
We spent vast sums of money trying to make sure they are happy and healthy. We spend lots money buying things that we project will make them happy.
Dogs provide something for us that very few beings on this planet can provide. They are just “human” enough to be a confidant or a partner, and they are just animal enough to not be judgmental. And things would be nice for both species if we both lived in rural areas where we could regularly behave as the creatures we are.
The dogs’ elevation in human society has come at the same time as our great urbanization. Now, dogs and people live in a sterile environment of concrete. People are on anti-depressants. So are our dogs. Many of us don’t adjust that well to the contrivances of urban living. How can we expect dogs to do the same?
And that brings me to Michael Schaffer. Schaffer writes for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Schaffer has also written a book on the pet industry. I think at first Schaffer wanted to do some real detached analysis of the pet industry. Instead, he has written an interesting book that really talks about the sociology of dog culture.
Here is a video of Schaffer’s talk about the book. Everyone who comes to this blog will be able to relate to just about everything discussed in this talk.
I think the reason why we wind up arguing so much about dogs is that it goes back to the old Australian Native proverb: “Dogs make us human.” How we view our dogs says a lot about how we view our own humanity and our own image that we wish to project to society. I think part of the reason why so many dogs are so ill-behaved is because we spend so much time using the dogs to project our own human image that we forget about the dog as a being unto itself with its own drives, instincts, and emotions.
Thanks for linking that, I just got around to watching it today and enjoyed it a lot. =)
Definitely the perspective of a person in the middle of the doggie politics and looking both ways at the extremes from either side if the fence.
This is how the general public sees things. Not how the Fanatic dog fancy does. Or the extreme Animal rights vermin.
I can relate. Because I clearly stand in the middle and respect things from both sides of the same fence. Its my choice based on the ethics I follow and the morals I keep on what I accept and don’t. But I do take things from both sides to make my own.
Obviously marching to the beat of our own drum here at Chatham Hill. And enjoying every minute of it while meeting more people everyday that share the same perspective. Its not surprising to find that most rational, intellectual, free thinking individuals really don’t care much for the world of the dog show fancy in any way shape or form. They prefer a better way. Something beneficial for the dog that also represents themselves. Just like the current trend of “going green” in the vehicles we choose, you see more people opting for “breeding clean” in the dogs we choose. Which more and more means the trend for a unique hybrid dog is becoming the status quo.
The pure bred dog fancy may actually be losing this battle for all the reasons the scathing documentaries, in the UK and here in the US, touched upon.
Let me repeat what my client say…. Bravo.
Beautiful picture for this post.
I ran out of my nice looking red dogs, so I had to use some blond Newfoundlands.