Can pets be successful working dogs?

[GentleLake]

I personally know two people (couples, actually) who have 14+ personal dogs and both foster anywhere from 2 to 4 rescues at a time. All dogs live in the house.

 

I'm not sure anymore how many dogs the founder and president of Glen Highland Farm's border collie rescue personally has adopted that live in the house with her and her family, but I know at one point it was 17, with various fosters coming into the house temporarily as well.

 

It might not be for everyone, but it certainly can be done.

 

No arguments otherwise, and I'm happy for your dogs that they've been able to live in your home with you and Anne.

[red russel]

not that the answers are wrong or inaccurate but keep in mind you have posed a question to a like minded audience.

 

dave

[G. Festerling]

In my little mind I would say, yes, a working dog can easily be a pet. But a pet, often would not make a great working dog. Expectations would be too different. For me, I stack things. Things are ordered somewhat by "importance" or in what order I would address them in. Since I can only do one thing at a time.

With neither taking higher rank.

[olivehill]

I think there's an unnecessary negative connotation with the word "tool" in this context that makes the entire conversation rather moot.

 

"Tools" are only regarded poorly because most people do not need them to make a living. For those of us who do, they remain prized and well-taken care of in much the same way you should take care of a good working dog. You start by buying good quality from a trusted source and in a model that is likely to fit well for the job you have in mind, you bring it home, use it properly, store it in a safe place, perform regular upkeep and maintenance, fuel it up as needed, keep an insurance policy in case of accident or disaster... and if it happens to be a tool that could also be utilized for recreation, you do that with it, too.

 

Seems to describe a working dog rather well, to me.

[chene]

Except that a tool doesn't make you laugh or cry or want to hug it so tight that neither of you can breathe. If a tool is lost then it's a shame because you lose a lot of work and money that you invested in it.. If a dog is lost then your life is turned upside down because you've invested yourself. You become vulnerable to a dog, not to a tool. It's interesting, they talk about whether dogs can feel empathy and recognize that other people have different points of view. But in classifying a dog as a tool then it's us humans that are unable to feel empathy for it or recognize that it has its own mind and emotions and views on the world. Dogs aren't our trophy wives, but the parallels you draw between tools as dogs sure make them out to be.

In answer to the original question, I definitely think that G.Festerling has got it right. A good working dog can nearly always make a good pet, but only if the work takes equal priority as being a pet does.

[olivehill]

Chene -- May I ask how you make your living?

[chene]

Sure, I'm actually a student at the moment. But if you think the way I view tools is questionable then feel free to re-explain. I was going off of your words alone.

[olivehill]

I don't think it's "questionable" at all, I just think it is the view of someone who does not need tools to make a living. Which is case-in-point of my first post. The word tool has a naturally negative connotation to the vast, vast majority of the population because they have never been wholly dependent on a "tool" for their livelihood. It's not the fault of the people who hold that view, it just is what it is. Good, bad or otherwise it's a simple function of the cultural suburbanization of society.

 

I'm simply saying that many of the people who would be likely to be using a working dog as a tool in their operation are also the people who are likely to need tools to do their job. So to assume that by calling the dog a tool they are meaning that the dog would receive anything lesser in terms of care is an error in perspective.

[juliepoudrier]

I disagree with your characterization Olive Hill. Sure there are people who rely on their tools and take great care of them. But there are also people who don't. And if by tools you're referring to mechanized equipment, then the investment you make in that equipment also plays into the amount of care you're going to give it. I don't think the analogy works.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

And by the way, I raise livestock but use virtually no mechanized equipment. My dogs I relied on tremendously.

 

J.

[olivehill]

Yes, there are always owners of [insert thing--living or not] who take no pride in and therefore do not take care of the that which they own--again, living or not. I was excepting those people from the conversation given that I would put people who need tools but do not take care of them in the same group as people who need animals of any kind and do not take care of them, they are simply irresponsible.

 

I am not talking strictly about mechanized equipment. I am talking about everything from attire to hand tools to tractors.

 

At any rate, I will not beat the dead horse further. Objections followed swiftly by admission of not belonging to the group I reference is exactly the point I was trying to make: it is an issue of perspective. When someone says, "tool" they may not necessarily mean strictly what you might think of as being encompassed by that word. It is the irony of language: it's our chosen way to communicate and yet so incredibly ineffective.

 

ETA: And just to make sure it's clear: I'm not saying the other posts are wrong. Like Red Russel/Dave I'm just saying: remember there's another perspective out there other than the dominant one here.

[juliepoudrier]

Oh okay, I assume you're talking about me saying I don't use tools. That invalidates my opinion. Gotcha.

 

My neighbor considers his working dog a tool. For that reason, he generally does nothing "fun" with his dog (fun used for lack of a better word; maybe it would be better to note that he doesn't seek to have any real relationship with his dog beyond the work) , generally speaks little to it except to correct it, but yeah, he likes the dog because the dog does his job. He takes good care of the dog (fed, vetted. kept in a clean space). Still doesn't sound like a great existence for a social animal. But hey, he takes good care of his tool, so it must be okay!

 

J.

[chene]

I'm a little confused. I never said that a tool can't be necessary and hugely important and be very very well taken care of. I said that the emotion is not there and the empathy is not there. Convince me that those who use tools as their livelihood feel emotion and empathy towards them, and we'll be in agreement.

[Laurae]

I rely on my computer to make a living, and I take very good care of it. It is absolutely a tool, very expensive and well kept and maintained. And I enjoy working with it. But I don't have a relationship with it. And therein lies the rub.

[juliepoudrier]

^^Exactly. I had decided to come back here and post something about relationships and especially relationships with things animate vs. inanimate, but Chene and Laura have said it nicely. I have no doubt that people who rely on their tools would be wise to take good care of them. But I doubt you have any sort of partnership (in the normal sense of the word) with your inanimate tools. Nor do you need to consider the emotional/mental needs of any inanimate tool. I'm surprised that it would be difficult to understand that.

 

J.

[olivehill]

^^Exactly. I had decided to come back here and post something about relationships and especially relationships with things animate vs. inanimate, but Chene and Laura have said it nicely. I have no doubt that people who rely on their tools would be wise to take good care of them. But I doubt you have any sort of partnership (in the normal sense of the word) with your inanimate tools. Nor do you need to consider the emotional/mental needs of any inanimate tool. I'm surprised that it would be difficult to understand that.

 

J.

 

It's not. I never said it was. I understand, recognize and have acknowledged your perspective as legitimate. I can offer an alternate perspective without condemning those that are in opposition to it.

 

And I would like it noted that I never once suggested someone who has a dog as a tool would or should neglect their mental needs -- as far as I'm concerned that would fall neatly under "maintenance and upkeep."

[Tea]

Chene I loved what you wrote

 

And Laura and Julie!

[Tea]

Olive Hill, the dog in your photo loves you clearly.

A hammer does not give that look.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

There's been so many fine and tender things written on this topic, I hesitate to add my bluntness. I'll claim geezer privilege:

 

I don't keep pet dogs. Calling them "pets" with the inevitable overtones of indulgence and triviality makes me wince. My sheepdogs are central to who I am, how I live and make my living.

As with early shepherds, my dogs sleep near or beside me. In a year, we'll only spend three or four nights apart.

What we learn working, we take into the house and hotels and dog parks and offices and beaches and friend's homes and literary gatherings.

What we learn in the house, we take to the frightened ewe with a newborn on a howling night.

They teach me. I teach them.

I will be buried on the hill where they are buried above the meadow where the sheep bed down.

 

Donald McCaig

[Izzysdad]

I like what you said Donald. While I do not have stock to work I consider my dogs companions which I rank higher in my mind, whether that's right or wrong, I'm not sure. My BC's always don't have instinct to work so it's not really an option.

[juliepoudrier]

Yes, and the huge caveat there is the YOU. As far as YOU are concerned, it falls under "care and maintenance." I have certainly witnessed many situations where "care and maintenance" means what I described above (physical needs met) and not what the rest of us have been describing (the emotional needs).

 

I don't consider your asking those of us posting if we depend on tools for our livelihood as anything but dismissive of our opinions because you're implying that if we don't use tools as you do for our livelihoods (though as Laura pointed out, many of us do use tools, just not farm implements), then we can't have a valid opinion on the use of the word "tool" as applied to a sentient being.

 

I suspect that there will be no agreement between us on this subject, especially your claim that you have acknowledged my viewpoint as legitimate. By asking repeatedly if we depend on tools for our livelihood you are clearly implying that if we do not, our opinions are less valid.

 

I'm glad to see that the majority of the folks posting here recognize that there is a big difference between an animal as a tool and inanimate tools and how attitudes can be informed by the use of words.

 

J.

 

 

It's not. I never said it was. I understand, recognize and have acknowledged your perspective as legitimate. I can offer an alternate perspective without condemning those that are in opposition to it.

 

And I would like it noted that I never once suggested someone who has a dog as a tool would or should neglect their mental needs -- as far as I'm concerned that would fall neatly under "maintenance and upkeep."

[Tea]

hum, is it the definition? my horse and my dogs are used by us in our work everyday. without them, and the cattle, goats and shee, we could not pay our bills. this is how we make a living. Are my dogs tools?

 

not to me- they are partners in this our work, I am senior partner but I listen to them because often they know something I do not.

 

To me, a tool is an object.

 

One day we were loading a stubborn bull. A bull that was cut out from his harem of heifers to be loaded alone. He was defensive in this, though my dogs were diplomatic. (Except for Blood Sucking Fly Man who was being too pushy.)

 

My dogs risk when they do this, as does my horse and myself.

 

I do not force my dogs, I do not force myself. Or my horse. We choose to work together.

 

A tool you pick up and put down. It has no realization of partnership.

 

But my dogs choose.....my horse chooses. Bred to this work.....as surely as I am drawn to it.

 

I carry and use a rope, it does not care one way or another.......

[CMP]

I am a writer. My tools range from electronic devices to an old Underwood that was my grandfather's. Right after I save my elderly mother and my dogs, I am saving that typewriter.

 

Tool is just a word. It implies a concept to people which will vary depending upon that person's geographic location, education, age, world view and how much they have read. A farm dog IS a tool. So is a farm hand. They are items which are used to perform a job.

 

My father, recently passed, loved his sheepdogs. I mean he LOVED his dogs. In fact, he and Donald would have gotten along well and he IS buried next to Old Moss, who was his heart dog. But he would have been the first to tell you that OM was a tool - a wonderful, respected, beloved, valuable tool - but still a tool. He would have looked at you like you were insane had you questioned his compassion or kindness or decency for calling his dog a "tool".

 

In my experience farmers, and I mean the real ones, not the ones who get a few sheep so their dogs have something to chase and they have something to learn "herding" with - I mean the ones for whom the functionality of the farm and all of its tools is priority number one - because without a functioning farm all the things it supports will .. well, they will starve.

 

Calling a sheepdog a tool offends the delicate sensibilities, I know - but at the end of the day, a working dog is exactly that. They can be beloved and most of them are, as my experience goes, and the bond between a 'herd and his dog(s) is not unlike that of a child to a parent. That does not change what they are and how they function on a working farm.

 

My dad would have said that a Border Collie would get a kick and a half out of being called a tool. A Border Collie would probably find that a compliment - after all, what job can get done without the right tools?

 

Everyone's mileage may vary. Just seems a lot of ruffled feathers over a word that has a different role inside of every individual's vernacular.

 

Peace.

[Tea]

I think you are correct in that everyone defines things their own way.

 

my dogs have no concept of tools

 

but they do understand partnership.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

I could not run the farm by myself. My dogs do the work on the farm while I stand and open and shut gates.

 

Are they a tool? Nope, they are the better half of the partnership.

 

Today we butchered locker lambs. Nan sorted and then held them while the butcher did the deed. When the lambs were being processed, Nan, Maid, Nikki and Rain all sat around like a pack of hyenas....they know they will get a leg bone. They go their bone and trotted up to the front porch ( I wisely shut the door this year!)

 

No way I would be able to sort the lambs from the main flock. Nan did it under ten minutes. The guys said they like to watch my dogs work as it is the easiest job...I guess they help round up the other livestock on the other farms.

 

My goat was lame and Nan help her while I trimmed her hoof. Then we did some tending on the front lawn. My hardest effort was opening and shutting the gates. It was a nice day at the farm. I couldn't imagine trying to do this without the dogs.