Books & Ideas

Dogs Are Not People

January 23, 2014

Callie, Gregory Berns's dog and test subject, practices sitting still in a model MRI scanner. Photograph: Courtesy of New Harvest.

How Dogs Love Us
Gregory Berns
New Harvest, $25 (cloth)

Books abound on dog love, loving dogs, what it means to have or be with a dog. With all the writing about dogs, it might seem that we are too much infatuated with their unique qualities. But that is not it at all.

Even while we are ostensibly doing everything in our power to ascertain the nature and desires of dogs, the questions we ask obscure or betray what is most salient about them and necessary to their lives. And through it all—the testing and the loving, the ownership and the training, the argument for dog rights and the facts of their disposal—we never question the status of the human as a problem not a privilege.

To say, as Gregory Berns does in his new book How Dogs Love Us and his recent New York Times op-ed “Dogs are People, Too,” that dogs have the reasoning capacity of a young child is to continue to ignore what it is that dogs possess that we do not. Dogs are not people. Dogs are not humans. But we are desperate to appropriate whatever it means to be dog and to make that over in our image.

The urge to characterize dogs as like ourselves speaks to our ignorance and to the failure of imagination. As humans who control the arena of judgment, we cannot brook the humility demanded in confronting what we cannot understand, what we do not know.

We need to step back and ask how we can know feeling that is not tied to our assumptions. To risk losing ourselves in what is beyond our ken is to experience what it might mean to feel sufficiently. In other words, to know the kind of imaginative response that does not simply substitute one hierarchy for another but instead enables us to see otherwise or cross-wise. Perhaps animality is what we should be thinking about and not claims for humanity. Dogs live on the track between the mental and the physical and seem to tease out a near-mystical disintegration of the bounds between them. Their knowing has everything to do with perception, an unprecedented attentiveness that unleashes another kind of intelligibility beyond the world of the human.

What’s love got to do with it?

Those of us who live with dogs experience their peculiar sentience. It comes across as a full-hearted exuberance. Perhaps this is what the Puritan divine Jonathan Edwards meant when he emphasized a “physical” rather than “moral” conversion. He knew that the crux of divinity in earthbound entities lay in “the heart’s affections,” the great heart that very different kinds of writers about dogs insist upon.

But now whatever we mean by “heart”—which the poet, dog trainer, and philosopher Vicki Hearne and other dog trainers and breeders call “gameness,” not “love”—has become ominously repetitive, reduced to what Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson in Dogs Never Lie About Love (1997) identifies as their “master emotion”—“the dog is love . . . dogs are all about love.” Kathy Rudy in Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy (2011) takes nonhuman animals, especially her dogs, as prompts for a meditation on a love so all-encompassing that it calls for “sacrifice on both parts.” That is inevitable because of our mutually affecting entanglement, yet the only sacrifice explicitly described in the book is that of the animals—not only dogs but chickens, pigs, and cows as well. As long as we love the animals we eat—or eat them lovingly—we can be sanguine about what she calls “animal advocacy.”

Can we define “love” better if we consider not our own emotions but what dogs think? It is easy to assume that dogs don’t think at all, that, because dogs live and act within the habitat of humans, we think for them. As Bern’s research demonstrates, that is wrong, but dogs are too tactful to let us know. So we delude ourselves into thinking that they are mere objects of sense, brute icons of the human that need to be coaxed into obedience, beguiled into submission. 

The urge to characterize dogs as like ourselves speaks to our failure of imagination. 

The trainer William Koehler called those who would objectify dogs in this way “humaniacs.” Hearne understood the dangers of these people and their tendency to coddle. As she never tired of saying, their rules for kindness reduce animals to recipients of charity, or worse, of their masters’ beneficence. She emphasized in her book Adam’s Task: Calling Animals By Name (1986) that humans have to earn the right to say, “sit”; and, as Koehler believed, “Dogs have responsibility for the consequences of their actions.” Training is intensely shared work. It must be done out of respect for and commitment to dogs’ intellectual capacities, not out of the determination to make dogs over in our image or, worse, to make them responsible for our “emotional well-being,” as Hearne put it.

She was right. Jon Katz’s A Good Dog (2006) is a best-selling book about how the border collie Orson saved Jon’s life and how Jon put Orson to death after the dog developed behavioral problems and bit three people. Katz writes about his struggles, his inconsistency and rage, his failure and grief. He chases Orson down the street, drags and throws him “about ten feet into some shrubs,” raging and yelling. After confessing to his readers, “I’d hurt Orson that morning, throwing him around like that,” Katz describes the “covenant” or “contract” he makes: “about faith and commitment about the love that I have always wanted and needed and which he seemed to need, too.”

For humans such as Katz and other popular writers, only dogs that have been humanized are worthy of living. Heart-warming experience matters. It ushers in an emotive ethics that has little to do with practical consequences. Formal training that creates work for both dogs and humans demands not the merging of self and dog that humanizers crave, but rather respect, restraint, and commitment. It also asks for a bit less drama. Discipline and a firm correction can save the lives of dogs, especially those that are overly aggressive. But such training, and the recognition of the dog’s active influence on it, offends those who have nothing to offer but their own emotions. Or it is condemned as cruel: exercising physical authority over a dog becomes the moral equivalent of fascism.

Once the word “love” is used, we think we know what matters to the dog, and the dog becomes nothing more than the measure of our emotional lives. In these relationships, if we can call them that, dogs are there to supply the conditions for a perpetual fascination with our own subjectivity. But when considering the deep feelings shared by humans and dogs, the reciprocal respect, attachment, and attentiveness, “love” is not the right word.

What humans make of dogs—and the numerous books that use dogs as prompts for better lives, deeper understanding, and self-congratulation—tells us something about the lethal care of humans. Nothing is more poignant than a story of great love that leads to murder. In her 2004 New Yorker essay “Dog Trouble,” Cathleen Schine tells of how she tried to tame Buster, “a seventeen-pound bowlegged mutt” whose adoption coincided with the break-up of her marriage, much as Katz acquired Orson at the onset of his midlife crisis. Unable to work with Buster and apparently unwilling to put him in the hands of a competent trainer, she kills the dog, the dog she loved, the dog that alienated her friends, threatened her son, and terrified her mother. We do not know right off that a dog is the subject: “He was volatile, unpredictable. But I felt responsible for him. And, against all odds, I loved him.”

Schine’s woes, fits, and obsessions are projected onto Buster. He chases his tail, he bites it, and he bites humans. Nowhere does she seem to understand that the dog is resolutely not human. Living in the space of confusion that is Schine’s home, Buster “refuses to be redeemed.” What does redemption mean to a dog? The “troubles” are not assuaged by assorted drugs and trainers. In one instance, Schine puts Buster in an Elizabethan collar—rather like a cone-shaped plastic bucket—and then leaves him locked up in a strange place. In a locale of such passionate inconsistency, the much sought-for “recovery” of Buster does not happen. The dog she calls “vicious” is guilty: guilty of not being human. After all, he “defies kindness, defies the culture of therapy.”

The ruses of sentiment fail to confront the alternately knowing and doubting relation that matters most between humans and dogs. In The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People (1995), James Serpell, unlike those who blur the difference between dogs and humans, considers what is unique about the dog’s position in human society. What makes domestic dogs special, he argues, is the paradox of our relation to them, the “surprising degree of ambivalence” they arouse in us, the way their “affinity with humans” incites “suspicion, denigration and hostility as well as devotion and respect.”

Dogs occupy that in-between place where opposites no longer hold, what Serpell calls “the no-man’s land between the human and non-human worlds.” They straddle the contradictions—body and spirit, persons and property, domestic and feral—so dear to us in our grid of value and insignificance. They threaten the categories and hierarchies that uphold our civilization and justify its worst excesses. Humans cannot stand much ambiguity. Perhaps that is why dogs are loved and loathed, coddled and killed.

Thinking dogs

Berns is a professor of neuroeconomics at Emory University. He has no truck with the use and abuse of monkeys at Yerkes National Primate Research Center, about a mile from his lab. He is also no behaviorist: he does not reject animal consciousness—and hence feeling, fear, and pain—altogether. He knows dogs are not “robots bumbling around the world, randomly doing things and finding out which behaviors result in food.” Nor is he guilty of the kinds of torturous treatment—for example, brain extraction—that made Yerkes infamous following the release in 1974 of Frederick Wiseman’s film Primate.

After decades spent using MRI technology to study the human brain, Berns decided to find out whether the same tools could be used to determine what dogs think. Insisting upon the dogs’ willingness, he even uses consent forms, signed by the dogs’ guardians, just as if they were children. “Wherever the words your child appeared, we replaced it with your dog,” he writes. It is clear everywhere in this book that Berns not only loves dogs but also respects them enough to demand that their participation in his project is voluntary. The dog can quit at any time. “Same as a human volunteer,” he assures us.

Berns’s goal matters to dogs and to humans. In the highly abnormal conditions of the MRI scanner—noise and constraint—Berns wants to prove that something that counts as “intelligence” is part of a dog’s everyday life. Callie, his black terrier mix (also known as a feist), is eager to be part of the experiment: standing ready for her head to be wrapped, ears muffed, she walks into the coil of the MRI scanner and puts her head on the chin rest. She learns to trot up the stairs into the magnet and assume “the sphinx position in the head coil.”

Treating dogs like children encourages us to disregard what is unique about them.

Berns turns to the neuroscientist Jaak Panskeep who advocates “mapping animal emotions onto corresponding brain systems that are common to all mammals.” This is where the real thrill in the research lies. Through the science of brain mapping, Berns finds amazing similarity between dogs and humans in both the structure and function of the brain region called the caudate nucleus, which is associated with positive emotions—“the expectation of something good”—and implicated in learning, memory, and the response to physical beauty.

Though the dogs at first work for hot dogs and peas, as the research continues, Berns realizes that more is going on. “Do dogs have some concept of humans as something more than food dispensers?” he asks.

Simply knowing that human feelings toward dogs are reciprocated in some way, even if only partially, changes everything. It would mean that dog-human relationships belong on the same plane as human-human relationships.

Dogs are thinking, feeling beings. We learn this not just because of the results of the brain scans, but also because Berns makes sure that we come to know his dogs and their lives outside of experimentation. These stories of trans-species sociality distinguish his book from others in the relatively new discipline of canine science. Callie pushes her way into Berns’s bed “almost always in a position uncomfortable for the human occupants,” leads him in hot pursuit of geese on the Chattahoochee River, and knows when the family’s other dog, Lyra, is dying.

Unlike some researchers who claim on one hand that animals are entitled to what they call “humane treatment” and on the other insist that ethics and ethical judgment have no place in science, Berns does not hesitate to glean ethical implications from his scientific practice. The stakes are clear: his brain scans show that dogs think and therefore are sentient persons. Consequently they should be granted rights of personhood. This is not so radical. Spain and New Zealand extend personhood rights to great apes. And in August the government of India ruled that cetaceans, such as whales and dolphins, should be regarded as “non-human persons” with their own specific rights.

But since no animal welfare act has yet “elevated the rights of dogs to the same level as those of our human subjects,” Berns’s goal is understandable. To say that dogs are persons is to attribute to them the kind of conscious intentionality that defines subjectivity as we understand it. “Never mind that all previous animal research treated animals as property,” Berns writes. “Elevating the rights of a dog to that of a human child made both ethical and scientific sense. It was the right thing to do and it would result in better-quality data too.”

More than Hot Dogs

Berns’s findings are compelling, but his conclusion, that dogs should have rights like those of human children, is troubling. Treating dogs like children demeans them and encourages us to disregard what is unique about their intelligence and character.

The problem begins with Berns’s training methods. In order to tempt dogs into the MRI scanner—no mean feat, I admit—Berns and his associates use positive reinforcement: they dispense pieces of hot dogs, sometimes with the sound of a clicker, with a frequency that makes me wonder about the weight gain of dogs not as active as Callie, who was among the study’s first subjects.

There is a contradiction here. Berns understands the social intelligence of dogs, and he knows how much it matters to do something “for social praise”—or what he calls “love”—rather than just for food. He distinguishes himself from B. F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov, for he brings into the lab an appreciation and respect for dogs in what he calls “their native environment—the human household” where there is “give-and-take, and testing, on both sides.” So if he believes that dogs learn by observation and imitation, why does he still rely on hot dogs galore?

I think here of J. M. Coetzee, so obsessed was he in The Lives of Animals (1999) and Elizabeth Costello (2003) with the tragic diminution of the ape named Sultan. Sultan was reduced from a thinking being into one who did the least complicated or interesting task for nothing more than a quick treat. No matter what Berns finds in the dogs’ caudate nuclei, and no matter his good intentions in giving dogs the status of persons, the way to the result is littered with the bribery of treats. The characterization that remains in our minds is that of an entity with an insatiable appetite.

Does this matter? After all, he is after nothing less than what he calls “evidence for canine theory of mind.” More than that, he wants to prove dogs’ consciousness is on “the same level . . . as a young child,” so that they are protected against exploitation and cruelty. But we share with dogs a creaturely entanglement and mutual dependence that goes beyond infantilizing them as children. Dogs have a unique awareness, thoughts that matter, though they cannot be shared in our language.

The Problem of Animal Rights

At the edge of a cherished humanism, what if we summoned instead a kind of remote and uncertain reservoir on which all creatures might draw but from which most humans have learned to cut themselves off completely? Instead of opposing humans to dogs, we need to question the boundaries of humanity, or, put more precisely, the making and management of human boundary objects. Why, to take up Mary Midgley’s argument in Animals and Why They Matter (1998), does “a sense of unreality” block “our attempts to understand our moral relations with animals”? Why is the question of the animal so hard to fit into our ethical system?

Beware animal rights talk: thousands of dogs are killed each year in the interest of rights.

Berns’s solution to this problem is rights. For him, the scans prove the reciprocity of human and canine “brain processes.” This means that dogs, too often disregarded, will be granted self-awareness. No longer property, they will have rights.

But we should beware of animal rights talk, of giving dogs what it is we think we get as bearers of rights and obligations in standard liberal and moral terms. What makes something an object of moral concern? Giving animals what we think they need or deserve in terms of human conceptions of right and wrong, or capacity or incapacity, is part of the top-down judgment that always fails those we speak for.

In Animals, Property, and the Law (1995), the legal scholar and activist Gary Francione warns about the calculated risks of rights talk. The word “rights” undergoes changes in meaning and reach depending on whom or what it applies to. Any consideration of how malleable legal language is in the law of slavery, prison law, or the rules and regulations of allowable suffering in animal experimentation proves his point: what is considered “‘humane’ treatment” or “‘unnecessary’ suffering may,” Francione explains, “differ considerably from the ordinary-language interpretation of those terms.”

Let us not forget that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of dogs every year, all in the interest of rights. In 2011 PETA took in 2,050 animals, mostly cats and dogs, and killed 1,965 of them. According to the logic governing the organization’s practices, the right of animals to be free of appropriation by humans justifies their deaths.

it is clear that there is another kind of relation experienced by human and dog, one that might matter differently and more than the recognition of rights—especially for those of us who want to continue living with dogs. “When Callie and I finally got home,” he writes, “we crashed together on the couch. We looked at each other once and then closed our eyes.” This is the interaction that matters, the two-way communication between dogs and humans, not our love that licenses the conferral of rights or death on its object.

So if dogs “love” us, what kind of love is it? Never afraid to ask tough questions, Berns takes us with him on his fascinating pursuit. If he stops short of giving dogs and humans equal purchase on emotions such as love and attachment—leaving dog sentience at the level of a child’s—he nevertheless proves that dogs and humans share physiological mechanisms and coexist not only on an emotional but also on a cognitive level. Dogs might even be our best teachers. “Could it be that our dogs tell us more about our human relationships than we tell ourselves?” he asks. Dogs know us and attend to our desires. The most we can do is inhabit the reciprocal possession, the responsibilities and ties, the mutuality of adaptation that Berns calls for with such candor and wonder.

At a time when some animal rights advocates argue for the extermination of dogs rather than have them suffer the indignity of being pets, I thank Berns for his wit and grace, for his courage in writing so that the contradictions of human and dog relationships remain intact, in all their wayward, messy, ambiguous, and paradoxical effects. Instead of attempting to define how and where we draw the line between humans and dogs, Berns helps us to understand—sometimes in spite of himself—how, where, and why human beings, often arbitrarily, devise, formulate, and apply lines separating the human and animal—or deliberately blur those lines.

Now let’s go further. We need to think again about dogs, as Berns suggests, but as the ground for human sensibility and cognition, not the other way around. In such a terrain, even the word “love” can be redeemed. And, perhaps, even the notion of “human.”


If corporations can be people, why can't dogs?

Because this is not a joke.
Five million 5.000.000 people are bitten annually, in the USA alone. Eight hundred thousand 800.000 people needing medical attention with one thousand admitted to the hospital emergency costing over $1 billion dollars per year in medical costs.
You may understand it better at
Is there a reason an animal capable of biting, maiming, and killing with these kinds of statistics is living among us as pets? The most common reaction heard from dog owners AFTER their dog has bitten someone is, “My dog doesn’t bite.” You could have blood spurting out of a body part, with the dog still attached, and they would still say, “My dog doesn’t bite.”
Tell us about insanity.
Mr MAD - No Dogs, Please!

For the listener, who listens in the snow, 
And, nothing himself, beholds 
Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is.

This is really shoddy argument.<br>
1) rights "demeans" dogs. Tell that to the beagles who are debarked and then used as subjects of biomedical experimentation. Rights are basic protections such as those against arbitrary imprisonment, torture, and death. You're telling me that respecting the rights of dogs not to be imprisoned, tortured, and killed "demeans them." This is a truly silly argument. You try to interpret the idea of "recognizing rights" as "treating animals like children," but who is proposing that?<br>
2) Surely you are right that there is a difference between our intimate relationships with our pets and the recognition of rights. But that fact gives no reason for thinking we should dispense with the latter because the former is what matters to us in our relationships with companion-animals. Again, the beagles in the biomedical research labs need protection from the violence of researchers. So even if I never use language of rights with respect to my children, their rights are important because they protect them from violence at the hands of doctors or researchers. So again, this argument against rights for dogs is just bad. <br>
3) "Let us not forget that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of dogs every year, all in the interest of rights. In 2011 PETA took in 2,050 animals, mostly cats and dogs, and killed 1,965 of them. According to the logic governing the organization’s practices, the right of animals to be free of appropriation by humans justifies their deaths." <br>
PETA does not have a strong animal rights view. The guiding moral perspective seems much closer to Singers'. They kill animals because these animals have futures that are likely to involve more suffering than pleasure. They are closer to the vast majority who hold that animals can be innocently killed when their lives are unlikely to be good in the future (euthanasia of our beloved pets, or euthanasia of lab animals when they are to be disposed of, nevermind the predominant method of disposal or unwanted domesticated animals in shelters). Advocates for animal rights tend to support no-kill shelters for precisely this reason. So this argument also is awful. <br>

The term 'anthropomorphism' covers much of this issue. Mankind is profoundly egocentric; self-fascinated. One of the functions deep in the snakebrain operates to project human traits throughout the environment. The language of France puts male and femal terms in front of nouns; other languages suggest human qualities or traits onto both biological and all other physical objects. That is especially the case where the projection includes 'cathexion', charged emotions related to peak experiences. The process of projection is so deeply imbedded in the mind that it must come from profoundly pre-linguistic experience humans have within the 'environment' we tend to call 'nature'. 

Agreed! The problem here is not that dogs are sentient, and deserve personhood. That is patently false. Dogs have a type of consciousness, that is true. But sentience? Personhood? Be realistic.
There was an essay I read a long time ago about how being quiet and friendly allows other people to bring you into their trust because they inherently project all their favorite qualities onto you. People do this with dogs. Dogs can't tell you to shut up or get your shit together and quit wasting your life the way humans can. It also gives people an outlet for love and affection to a living thing that cannot reject you or disapprove of you (because dogs are not sentient, and therefore cannot think for themselves). 
Not only is this projection, but it is self-loathing as well. People who love and respect dogs FOR BEING DOGS are not the kinds of people who treat dogs like babies or children. Loving a dog for its dogginess is a genuine appreciation for them as living beings. And a real, genuine, honest appreciation is the foundation of all good relationships. Honestly treating a dog like a dog is the best thing anybody can do. Let dogs be dogs, and accept them for who and what they are.

Well, you sure took a lot of space to talk about a lot of different aspects - of dogs - and people - all at the same time.  And yup, folks love dogs and cats, take them in, and still can't always find homes for them. Yup, people are born like that also, but that's not on the agenda today. And yup, I'm done with this article.

If you take what presumably is intended as thought about dogs and humans in Colin Dayan's piece as your criterion for what constitutes thought, then I have no problem believing that not only dogs but a lot of other animals easily qualify. I have seldom read such a surfeit of words marshalled to such poor effect, and persisted to the end only in the hope that there would be a point to it all after all, but in vain. Enough said.

According to the logic governing the organization’s practices, the right of animals to be free of appropriation by humans justifies their deaths.

This grossly mischaracterises PETA's position. PETA very clearly lays out why they euthanize animals here:
It is decidedly not for the reason you give.

It’s probably not a good idea in an article to raise expectations one has no intention of satisfying, especially when one is chastising others for their supposed ignorance, poor judgment and failures of imagination.  Despite Colin Dayan’s diligent tour through an impressive range of books on dogs and their relationship to humans, I found myself at the end of his article no wiser than before about how to escape my human-centred understanding of dogs’ cognitive and other capacities.  Nor could I discern emerging from his curiously self-flagellatory admonishments a coherent set of alternatives to the human-centred love and respect that conscientious dog owners already show their dogs.
Surely a recognition that encouraging dogs to behave in ways that enable them to coexist with humans doesn’t commit us to the illusory belief that dogs are imperfect people.  Nor does it prevent us from investigating, to the extent permitted by our own limited cognitive capacities, the characteristic wants, needs and abilities of dogs that contribute to making them distinctly what they are.

This is a very muddled review. The centerpiece of Berns' work is surely the data and conclusions of various MRI studies.  It is unclear whether it is the reviewer or Berns (in this popular work) who is shying away from a technical discussion of scientific results.

Seems to me we can and do recognize, rightly, the rights of lawful entities that aren't humans, and that this in no way dictates we assign to these persons what we call "human rights." It's not called-for that we resort to any line-blurring or false equivalency merely to acknowledge that dogs, corporations, hypothetical future artificial intelligences or what have you, possess interests unique and distinct from those of their owners; what the courts call "standing."

It misses the point to ask about the "nature" or "rights" of dogs -- or of humans -- in isolation.  Dogs and humans have had a long profitable and pleasurable symbiotic relationship from the moment dogs discovered our garbage.  Smart? well, they figured out that we had excess food. Then we found that they were helpful on hunts with their keen senses and readiness to work in bands to get -- more food!  I've had the good fortune of spending a half year among old fashioned herders about a half-century ago. Their dogs were ecstatic at work, bullying hundreds of sheep about, and well cared for. They got many lamb-chop bones to gnaw on and a constant flow of kind words and strokes. They saved their appreciative masters much work.  I've had many dogs as pets. Were they happy? Yes, but not like those sheep dogs at work ...

What crazy "animal rights advocate" would have an animal destroyed rather than be a pet?

Dogs are ferocious animals. I have been bitten by dogs when I was a child.  I was afraid of dogs. They attacked me for no reason. Especially when they were in packs. Even a smal dog bit me. I can tell you a lot about dogs attacking people. As much as you think that you can control your dog, I am telling you that the dog is a vicious animal, and you cannot control it. Do us a favor and let the dogs be animals, do not make them as pets. Because this dogs will hurt people. And I love people not dogs!

If  dogs are people they are very strange ones.  I have enough problems with anthropomorphising people without moving on to dogs (etc).

No one who advocates killing animals is an animal rights activist.

In the end, does it matter if they have 'consciousness' or not? Dogs are not human. They cannot perpetrate our species. Its a bizarre stagnation to make them into our prime relationship. 
An integral part of living is killing things. Even vegetarians kill plants. I think this is one of the main issues here. How do we treat animals humanely? How do we love and kill animals appropriately? Perhaps we would like to live without killing things, but we can not eat or live in the world without killing other species. We must eat, we must have shelter, we must defend ourselves.
I don't care if people love their animals and dress them in onesies. I worry when children are attacked by pitbulls and people care more about the pitbull than the child.
It has real consequences in our society. Children are being killed, and they are precious beyond the life of any animal.

no they are not. Life is equally worth. Plants can't feel pain, so "killing of plants" can't be compared to killing highly developed lifeforms. And stop using children as "Discussion-ending argument", it goes on everyones nerves!

This reminds me of a neighbor I had that had a dog that was getting older (as dogs do), and it couldn't walk as much or move around as much. They put it to sleep without a seconds thought! I'm sorry, but can't you at least take the dog to the vet and see if there are any solutions, such as, or other medications that may help the dog with joint pain? It upsets me that people don't take the time to find a solution, but rather put the dog to sleep!

You hear tons of complaints over many animals, but overall dogs are one of the least hated animals I know of. People will list masses of points as to why a specific animal is bad but I am overall surprised why dogs have not been in the hate game at all. I myself have had dogs in the past on a farm, and I learnt a lot about them growing up. They start of as an annoying puppy who shows no love towards you at all, but one you smack, scold him, play, love and feed him, there is a process of an unbreakable friendship that eventually turns into an unhealthy relationship of obsession. Years later, we did not get enough money after not being able to produce crops, and so we had hardly any food to feed the dog. Instead of making him starve, I would give my small meals until we had to let him stay with a nearby neighbour who agreed to look after him until we got back on track. Well, I had lost a lot of weight when the day came of picking him up, and it turned out he was not very excited to see me once came through the door and once we got home he would sit by the door whimpering for days and would not eat his food. It turned out he missed our neighbour who would go out shooting birds and such and give them for the dog to eat, which happened to be better than anything we had ever given him. We had to give him away once he started attacking and snapping at me for fussing with him too much. He ended up a beloved pet of our neighbours and I no longer believed in the word 'mans best friend'.
Dogs are responsible for the deaths of more humans than any animal apart from Mosquitos a year and every year thousands of children are attacked by dogs around the world. Dogs are still the most loved animal by man. And it's also sad to read how dog lovers criticise the child that got mauled to death by a dog by 'being too hard'. I am also fed up of people blaming the owner for letting their dog ACT LIKE A DOG? Dog obsessed lovers are so stupid it gives me a headache. Good day.

Huh? Did it end? oh, sorry. I remember reading that the writer seemed to tease-out a near mystical disinterest, and down I went.
Is there really a Jaak Panskap? Anyway, 'rights' only exist in the mind of a sentient being who understands them and their value in civic law. Tell it to the surrounded injured doggie in Call of the Wild: you have the right to remain eaten.
Animals 'perceive'...intelligent humans ideate...they abstract...use language...sheesh. nutty.

Just this: I would utterly fail at being a dog, or a cat, or a squirrel, or a racoon. I might even flunk at being a cow. I was brought up on a farm. Animals evolved to solve quite different problems from those confronted by human and they developed very different bodies and minds and senses in order to do so. Just imagine as a human trying to sniff a tree or a turd and decipher who had been there, their age, sex, fertility, suitability as food, as a mate - and how long ago - and whether it is worth going a'wooing. Imagine trying to jump from slender branch to slender branch and also imagine trying to remember where you stashed all those nuts, and imagine trying to mislead other squirrels as to where the nuts are. Saying a dog has an intelligence equal to that of a two and a half year old means almost nothing. If dogs, or squirrels, set the exams, we'd all flunk.

I blame Disney for the rampant personification of our wildlife. And Obama, of course.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. CAPTCHA is not case sensitive.
Enter the characters shown in the image.