Joined
·
105 Posts
Of course if you are undecided or you think it could go either way, I'd love to know too.
"Large Dog Owning Population within a Country: Blessing or Curse?"Of course if you are undecided or you think it could go either way, I'd love to know too.
Yeah that's what I meant. A large percentage of a country's total population that owns dogs. I'd love to know more why you think it's a blessing, just curious.a large population where most everyone owns a dog
Its a blessing to be part of a country that allows all of its population to own dogs. The only way any country would get me to give up my dog is when they pry it from my cold dead hands... 🇺🇲Yeah that's what I meant. A large percentage of a country's total population that owns dogs. I'd love to know more why you think it's a blessing, just curious.
This is actually a really good point that I think often gets missed. Even though the purebred dog market is dominated by the popular breeds, in countries with large dog owning populations, even the less common and rare breeds have sizable ownership populations and aren't constantly on the brink of extinction. It does make me think of countries with much smaller dog owning populations, countries that have to constantly import because there are not enough people within the borders to breed hundreds of different breeds domestically, and/or countries that make it impossible to own a dog unless you import, and how they are doing.I didn't even have to go far to find a reputable and responsible breeder of a fairly rare breed.
That's a good point too.I own a dog reactive dog and confess that it can be tiring and stressful sometimes to have to plan outings with him around how likely other people with dogs are likely to be at our favorite walking/hiking spots. It'd be really nice to be able to go anywhere we want whenever it's convenient for us with him. But the accessibility of dog professionals and products far outweighs that, for me. I can't imagine having a medical emergency and being stuck either driving an hour+ to the nearest open clinic or trying to get ahold of the one farm vet that serves the area (no shade to farm vets, they're often wonderful at what they do, but when it's one person taking care of every domestic and livestock animal in a large radius, you always risk them not being available or close enough to help in an emergency).
This is an interesting discussion. I have some friends who also have this position. Some questions do come to mind.In a nutshell...I think I would prefer to live in a place where not many people own dogs...and those who do own dogs are serious about it and respect the space of others. I don't much care about access to pet stores because of the ability to order anything online these days, although the lack of veterinary care would be difficult if an emergency occurred.
i know this is a dog forum but just to off script for a fast second, i find my moring commute whether its via car or mass trans would be sooooo much faster and safer if we could limit the amount of vehicles on the road...That's a fair point too Lillith. I live in a semi-rural neighborhood that's about 45% dog owners, and I would say most are in the ok range (their dogs could have more, but they are taken care of physically and mentally), mostly due to the nonstop work from my shelter and the shelter across town.
This is an interesting discussion. I have some friends who also have this position. Some questions do come to mind.
1. Do you think you would be a part of the few that are able to own dogs? If you were deemed unfit to own a dog, would your opinion change?
2. Do you think countries that have controls (can't own unless you import, breeding regs, etc.) to prevent the dog ownership level from reaching it's natural level with supply and demand have it right? Popular breeds will be taken care of, but what about the more rare breeds? Concerns about genetic bottlenecking?
3. Assuming you are in the USA, do you think the current dog ownership level has already gotten out of hand? Should it be lower?
1. Depends on what the "requirements" were for owning a dog. I don't know why I would be deemed unfit to own a dog, other than I work away from home. I don't really care what people do with their dogs as long as their basic needs are met and they control their animal and prevent it from messing with my animal. If you can't demonstrate control of your dog, at the very least, you probably shouldn't have one.This is an interesting discussion. I have some friends who also have this position. Some questions do come to mind.
1. Do you think you would be a part of the few that are able to own dogs? If you were deemed unfit to own a dog, would your opinion change?
2. Do you think countries that have controls (can't own unless you import, breeding regs, etc.) to prevent the dog ownership level from reaching it's natural level with supply and demand have it right? Popular breeds will be taken care of, but what about the more rare breeds? Concerns about genetic bottlenecking?
3. Assuming you are in the USA, do you think the current dog ownership level has already gotten out of hand? Should it be lower?
Iceland immediately came to mind when I was having this conversation. It's an island with less than a half of a million people. From what I've read, their view on dog ownership is still somewhat narrow. Even if they wanted to, I don't think its possible for such few people to have multiple reputable breeders of hundreds of different breeds within the country's borders. Most of the dog owners in Iceland import on their own dime, which creates a large financial obstacle to own a dog, which limits the people than can own a dog, and completely bypasses the dog filling up shelters. There isn't much incentive to change this setup. It explains why countries with a similar setup to Iceland never had a shelter dog problem to the same extent. They control the inflow more than the fallout.I'm not personally familiar with any areas that have low numbers of dog owners because there's strict regulations on dog ownership in place (though I'd love to hear more about that if anyone has experienced that!), but I do worry about the availability of good, accurate information in areas without many dog owners. I had a high school roommate briefly who was from somewhere in China (forgive me, it was years back), who absolutely insisted that everyone knew you didn't let a dog indoors because they all had fleas and ticks. As in, they fully believed that ectoparasites on dogs were omnipresent and permanent and there was no way to treat them. I can't imagine the perception they had of US dog culture with dogs inside (and often on the furniture) before I explained flea treatments to them!
I think my friends who had that view only really cared what experienced animal people felt, and the fact that countries that limit dog ownership to the experienced few never have a shelter dog problem to the same extent. At least according to her, if dogs are just kept within serious dog people circles, then you don't have to spend valuable time educating people who don't want to be serious. So, to her, she doesn't mind misconceptions, as long it doesn't prevent the serious animal people from doing what they do. Of course, as you mentioned, it usually does result in BSL.Now I don't know if this was cultural or if that specific person was just... especially uninformed, but I do worry that it's so much easier for misinformation or misconceptions to spread in areas where few people are experienced with dogs, up to and including the legislators who make the rules regarding dog ownership. Just look at BSL: in cases like Norway, where the banned breeds are nearly nonexistent and every dog has to pass through customs to be allowed in the country, so many people - even experienced dog people - believe that breeds like the APBT are unpredictable and dangerous, because they're never exposed to the breed. In the US, where BSL is often enacted only at regional levels and against breeds that already have substantial populations in the region, more people have personal experience with the breeds and understand that the bans are inherently flawed and ineffective, so there's way more social push back. Heck, look at how difficult it is to convince people that dominance theory isn't correct, even when so many people and organizations are actively challenging it.
I agree.Honestly strict regulation on dog ownership seems like a nightmare.