Author iris219 Posted June 6, 2012 Author Posted June 6, 2012 OP, to remain relevant to topic and not get off on the pit bull tangent, what aspects of this dog has your BF related to you that makes this a pivotal relationship issue? I understand that there's little chance of this dog and your dog cohabiting. What has he communicated which highlights his attachment to the animal, potentially to the point of this relationship ending because of it? I'll use an example: When my exW left, she took our Siamese cat whom I was very attached to. As a result, this left a void, irrespective of the divorce. My bmf's wife found me another Siamese, a male, who has seen me through the divorce and my mother's death and to whom I'm very attached. He talks (Siamese are very vocal) and acts more like a dog following me around, and lays at my feet or on my lap. I'm describing why and how I came to be so attached, to the point of perhaps it being an irreconcilable dealbreaker with a non-cat lover or other incompatible pet owner. How does it go for your BF? He tragically lost a pet right before he got this one. We were broken up at the time, so I don't know if that made it harder for him. I'm sure it did, as he contacted me after months of NC to talk about the loss of the other dog. I know it took them awhile to get used to each other and bond. His dog isn't very lovable at times (destructive, rough, and stubborn) and he was still mourning the loss of the other one, but they eventually formed a strong bond. He knows his dog isn't easy to love and I think in some ways this makes him love the dog more. As far as my dog is concerned, I got him after we had broken up as well. Because of the breakup, I was going crazy and I had lost so much weight I started having medical problems. Then I got this dog and everything changed; everything was better. I was forced to be emotionally stable because he depended on my sanity to survive. Before my dog, I wasn't healing from the breakup; after, I was able to recover. (I'm actually tearing up as I type this because my dog has so drastically changed me and my life.) I have become a much more selfless, compassionate person because of my dog. I never knew I could love the way I love him. I wasn't sure I wanted children until I got this dog. Now I know I do. I understand the love he has for his dog. I don't want him to give the dog up, but the dog would go to a family member, so it's not like he'd never see him.
carhill Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 So it appears he had a different dog during your prior relationship and became attached to this one upon its loss during your breakup. Would you say he typically pursues relationships where it's 'hard to love' or would this dog be an anomaly to that style? I often say that animals are a mirror of their owners, or vice-versa. Any commonalities in his case? Similar/complimentary behavioral styles?
irin Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 relationship, if its a good one. what if someone had had an allegri of a phobia of your pet? i actually cant be around dogs, i dont hate them but i have been attacked by one as a child, so dogs are a no-no, i would definitely choose human over animal, and im actually an animal lover, i do charity for an animal protection organization, and ive been a vegetarian for over 8 years. id still choose human over animal.
Art_Critic Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 I always choose the dog, and I don't even have a dog. That's because you are a nice guy.. a bad boy on the other hand wouldn't have to worry about it I would most certainly pick the pet over the relationship. The dog (old english sheepdog) I had before getting married I had for almost 16 years and there is no way I would have gotten rid of her for a GF...
Author iris219 Posted June 6, 2012 Author Posted June 6, 2012 So it appears he had a different dog during your prior relationship and became attached to this one upon its loss during your breakup. Would you say he typically pursues relationships where it's 'hard to love' or would this dog be an anomaly to that style? I often say that animals are a mirror of their owners, or vice-versa. Any commonalities in his case? Similar/complimentary behavioral styles? Actually, he typically avoids pursuing relationships at all. He's not someone who will make a lot of effort with women, and he gets bored with people easily. I don't know much about his previous relationships. He says they weren't important. And then I come along, and I was important, which was new for him. He got the previous dog right before breaking up with me and I suspect it was to help prepare him to be without me. He's never admitted it, but I'm pretty sure he was "plotting" the breakup months before he actually went through with it and told me it was over. He was ready for the breakup; I was devastated (though in hindsight, I should have seen it coming). The new dog was a replacement for the other dog (and possibly for me, though I'm really not sure about that).
Feelsgoodman Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 relationship, if its a good one. what if someone had had an allegri of a phobia of your pet? i actually cant be around dogs, i dont hate them but i have been attacked by one as a child, so dogs are a no-no, i would definitely choose human over animal, and im actually an animal lover, i do charity for an animal protection organization, and ive been a vegetarian for over 8 years. id still choose human over animal. I see your location states Europe. That explains your humanistic views. See my quote from Wall Street above. It really is not an exaggeration to say that people in many English-speaking countries like animals more than other people. This is part of the Anglo-Saxon cultural tradition. In North America and the UK, you'd meet plenty of people who despise their significant others/parents/relatives, yet absolutely adore their pets.
irin Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 I see your location states Europe. That explains your humanistic views. See my quote from Wall Street above. It really is not an exaggeration to say that people in many English-speaking countries like animals more than other people. This is part of the Anglo-Saxon cultural tradition. In North America and the UK, you'd meet plenty of people who despise their significant others/parents/relatives, yet absolutely adore their pets. yes im a humanist, and actually im currently located in the uk, and i see it everywhere. people are so cold to each other but walk around with their dogs like they have saved their lives or something. ive live here for a few years and still dont know my neighbours, but see their dogs all the time.
Mme. Chaucer Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 Mme. Chaucer, do you do sheepdog trials? I've always wanted to go to one of those competitions in England. Maybe someday. Yep, that's my thing.
Mme. Chaucer Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 There is still no valid data available that proves the whole "pits are naturally aggressive" myth. Dogs have been bred for traits. Herding dogs SHOULD herd. Pointing dogs point. Guardian dogs guard. And dogs bred to fight with other dogs / be aggressive SHOULD do so. Certainly there are exceptions, but pits are often dog aggressive. Humans bred them to be so. It sometimes comes upon the dog suddenly (around adolescence, often) and as a shock to their owner. They are also very strong, and thus challenging to handle if they get their dander up. People do a crappy job of breeding dogs frequently, and a lot of wanna be tough guys who are very ignorant have taken a fancy to pit bulls, and bred them. The result might be a "poor" pit that lacks dog aggression, but more often than not it results in misplaced aggression - towards people. Also, people don't take the management issues seriously enough in many cases. Pit bulls also frequently have considerable prey drive, which puts other animals at risk. Sometimes, frolicking children, too. I like pit bulldogs in general, but they have become a serious problem - due to the stupidity of humans. There are WAY more pits and pit crosses than any other breed in our animal shelter and rescue system where I live, and lots of apartments and even home owner insurance policies don't allow pit bulls. People should have more respect for the innate nature of dogs. It's NOT all about how we raise and train them. Some of them are sentient beings in their own right. 1
anne1707 Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 This thread needs a song.... I tend to alter the lyrics to "cat"
Janesays Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 Re: The pit debate: Yes, pits were originally bred for fighting. But to say they are 'genetically predispositioned' towards aggression towards animals shows a poor understanding of genetics and selective breeding techniques. Many dogs were originally bred (or commonly used) for fighting, yet no one claims they are naturally animal aggressive. In fact, if you want to get very technical, the very first domesticated dogs were tamed in order to serve as guard dogs and to fight. And since every single domesticated dog since then (Roughly 2000+ years ago) was bred from that stock, an argument could be made that ALL dogs were naturally animal aggressive. Which is bunk, of course. For the record, I'm an Ethologist. But a good portion of my work includes behavior modification, genetics, and cognitive science. Your boyfriend's dog: It's a liability to own it, true. But it's a bigger liability to re-home it. If his dog hurt his new owner (or someone else) the new owner could sue him claiming that your boyfriend didn't properly communicate the dogs issues. Sorta like claiming you were sold a gun without any warning labels. For the record, re-homing the dog isn't the only option. You might actually want to consult a certified behavior consultant. ccpdt.org allows you to search for them by zip code. Worst case scenario is that the dog be kept separated for their lives. This isn't as bad as it sounds. I have a friend who has two dogs that want to kill each other. They have a nice system of tethers and fencing in places that keeps both dogs safe and the home relatively peaceful. To answer the original question: No, I wouldn't give up my pets for anyone. I made an obligation to take care of them and I stand by my obligation. Anyone who would even ask such a question of me doesn't love me at all.
zengirl Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 To the question, my dog is Hubby's dog (was his first) so it seems a silly hypothetical, but yes, I'd give up a dog for my husband. As long as it could be given to a nice home. For an ex? No way, Jose! For someone new? Eh, probably not, unless there was a very good reason and I thought that person had extraordinary potential (hypothetically). I had gotten a cat not long before I met hubby, and it went to another home because he's allergic. It is my understanding (and perhaps MC can chime in) that dogs that are aggressive (naturally or not) towards other animals --- but not necessarily towards adult humans --- are quite often aggressive towards young children and thus would be a poor idea to keep if you had children in the home. So, I'm not sure how you could move in together and have kids -- the reason you couldn't just live separately -- and feel safe about it with that sort of dog anyway. You never know how ANY dog is going to react to new children in the house, but a dog that has already shown any signs of aggression towards animals or people should absolutely NEVER be in a house with children. Period. I do agree that you cannot really, as a dog owner, overcome a dog's natural temperament. You can make adjustments and so forth, but dogs function at a different cognitive level than adult humans, generally incapable of any great reason, so their genetic nature is going to be even MORE influential than human nature is, and even human's are driven somewhat by genetics, not solely nurture, though it's hard to say what degree. Additionally, many dogs aren't gotten as day-old puppies or anything and formative experiences play a role as well, even if you got the dog as a relative-puppy. Placing ALL the blame on a dog owner is as faulty as not doing so. There is a reason that many responsible pit bull owners (and I know a few) don't have multiple dogs. I've not heard that pit bulls, by their NATURE, have aggression towards people and most of the pits I've met are sweet as well, but they wouldn't be sweet, good friends at the dog park.
Feelsgoodman Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 Re: The pit debate: Yes, pits were originally bred for fighting. But to say they are 'genetically predispositioned' towards aggression towards animals shows a poor understanding of genetics and selective breeding techniques. Many dogs were originally bred (or commonly used) for fighting, yet no one claims they are naturally animal aggressive. In fact, if you want to get very technical, the very first domesticated dogs were tamed in order to serve as guard dogs and to fight. And since every single domesticated dog since then (Roughly 2000+ years ago) was bred from that stock, an argument could be made that ALL dogs were naturally animal aggressive. Which is bunk, of course. Actually, dogs were domesticated 15,000 years ago, not 2,000 years ago. And many dogs are, in fact, animal agressive "by default". Why do you think dogs chase cats, squirrels, rabbits, etc? They are following their instincts. And, if starving, a domesticated dog will hunt...or at least try to. Again, instinct. Also, let's not compare orignal domesticated dogs (who have gone through many thousands of years of selective breeding that modified their behavior) to pit bulls, who were specifically bred for dog fighting as late as 100 years ago.
maybealone Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 It is my understanding (and perhaps MC can chime in) that dogs that are aggressive (naturally or not) towards other animals --- but not necessarily towards adult humans --- are quite often aggressive towards young children and thus would be a poor idea to keep if you had children in the home. This, to me, is the biggest issue. Not just that the dog might be aggressive toward babies, but that the ex has a "let's cross that bridge when we come to it" attitude about it. First, this does not seem like the improved communication you are talking about. Second, what if he can't actually give the dog away when a baby arrives? Or that by that time he cannot find a suitable home for the dog? Is he going to keep the dog, leave you, force you to leave him, or something else? For me, this is a decision that would have to be set in stone before I ever considered procreating with him. 1
Janesays Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Actually, dogs were domesticated 15,000 years ago, not 2,000 years ago. And many dogs are, in fact, animal agressive "by default". Why do you think dogs chase cats, squirrels, rabbits, etc? They are following their instincts. And, if starving, a domesticated dog will hunt...or at least try to. Again, instinct. Also, let's not compare orignal domesticated dogs (who have gone through many thousands of years of selective breeding that modified their behavior) to pit bulls, who were specifically bred for dog fighting as late as 100 years ago. I think you are unclear of the difference between 'tamed' and 'domesticated.' Which is likely why the rest of your post is incorrect.
Mme. Chaucer Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Re: The pit debate: Yes, pits were originally bred for fighting. But to say they are 'genetically predispositioned' towards aggression towards animals shows a poor understanding of genetics and selective breeding techniques. Many dogs were originally bred (or commonly used) for fighting, yet no one claims they are naturally animal aggressive. In fact, if you want to get very technical, the very first domesticated dogs were tamed in order to serve as guard dogs and to fight. And since every single domesticated dog since then (Roughly 2000+ years ago) was bred from that stock, an argument could be made that ALL dogs were naturally animal aggressive. Which is bunk, of course. Well, we are way off topic, but this is an area I have a lot of hands on knowledge about, as well as education, so I have to chime in. I live on a farm and I train herding dogs to the highest level for farm / ranch work as well as competitions. The genetic predisposition and instincts MUST be in the dog in order for them to reach that level. Only dogs that have been bred exclusively with an eye towards these characteristics can do it. The ONLY breeds of dog that I have EVER seen do it in over 20 years (I am talking about some very high level work, including outrunning 800 + yards to get sheep without any commands, and then to follow very explicit commands while reading the sheep and controlling them at the same time) are border collies and a few Kelpies. Border collies were not even registered in the AKC until about a decade ago, and the working registry tried hard to stop it from happening. Geneticists have estimated that it takes approximately 4 generations of breeding for ANY traits besides working (like size, coat, color, ear set, and even focussing on eradicating a genetic disease) interferes with the working qualities. 4 generations in dog lives can happen in a couple of years. Anyway, the dogs need a lot of training to reach the goals, but they MUST have an intricate package of genetic material to start with or it won't happen. We breed for this. I do train other breeds of dogs, but I am closely involved with some other dogs whose genetic make up is crucial in order for them to do their jobs - the livestock guardian dogs. These dogs are amazing. They need to be raised and handled in a certain way in order for them to develop their inherent traits, but when they do, they are like NO other dogs in the world. They need to have great protective instincts with low prey drive, and a capacity to bond with livestock. You could never get a border collie to fulfill the role of the LGD's, or vice versa. Never. I could (obviously) go on and on about this, but my point is that I think you might not have a great understanding of selective breeding techniques. The breeds of dogs you see at a dog show that were originally bred for whatever are far from that by the time they are worthy of being in a beauty pageant. Their breeders have foregone their talents in favor of a physical standard. In Great Britain, the "KC" border collies are virtually a separate breed from the ISDS ones, and they cannot work. AKC bc's are close behind here in the US. The working registries won't even register dogs with KC / AKC heritage, since the working ability has been so diluted. But lots of dogs are pretty reliable at acting like what they were originally bred to do. Sight hounds, like Greyhounds, are extremely prey driven and frequently can never be trusted off of a leash all their lives. And, pit bulls tend to want to beat up other dogs and kill bunnies and kitties.
Janesays Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Ok, then. Can you please point me to the chromosome that includes the 'wants to kill puppies and kitties' gene? Oh wait. You can't. That's my job being that i'm a doctor the field. While you're a 'trainerwho apparently is able to google outdated studies and blatantly made up information well. Fortunately it is MY job (along with my peers) to create accurate, precise studies, research, data testing, etc. Hopefully other dog professionals actually read them instead deeming heresy and their 'personal experience' fact. *typed this on my phone. May look odd.
Eclypse Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Tell your ex to get rid of the crazy dog. What sensible person keeps an animal that wants to do harm to anyones elses pets. I think that says something about him. Id wonder what hes doing wrong as an owner if his pet is that violent. I have to echo these sentiments. I don't think I could date someone who wanted to keep something so vicious. My gfs cousins are big pit bull fans and their dog is some sort of cross with one. And to make it worse they have a baby now. I really can't relate to them.
Feelsgoodman Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Ok, then. Can you please point me to the chromosome that includes the 'wants to kill puppies and kitties' gene? Oh wait. You can't. That's my job being that i'm a doctor the field. While you're a 'trainerwho apparently is able to google outdated studies and blatantly made up information well. Fortunately it is MY job (along with my peers) to create accurate, precise studies, research, data testing, etc. Hopefully other dog professionals actually read them instead deeming heresy and their 'personal experience' fact. *typed this on my phone. May look odd. Can you please point me to a chromosome in a lion that includes "wants to kill humans" gene? Oh wait. You can't. Then why don't you head over to your local zoo, jump over the barrier and see if you can play with the big kitty. Only an idiot who would rely on common sense and observed behaviour. Smart people put their lives in the hands of statisticians and rely on "accurate, precise studies, research and data testing"
serial muse Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Many dog fighters choose “Pit Bulls” because they are quick to learn, eager to please and easy to handle. Once a Pit Bull accepts you as their master, they will gladly lay down their life to please you. I'm not a trainer, but one of my close friends is; she was just mentioning this very thing to me the other day about pit bulls - that the issue isn't that they're aggressive, but that they're so eager to please their masters and will do anything asked of them. But I'm no expert on dogs, and I see that the discussion on pits has moved waaaaayyyy beyond my realm of knowledge, so I should probably stay out of this part of the discussion. Anyway, back to topic. Iris, it sounds like the relationship isn't ideal for you in other ways. It's a tough situation, and I think it's lovely that you're sensitive to the love your ex has for his dog. But he (your ex) also sounds like he is immature, when it comes to adult relationships, and maybe that's not really about the dog at all. The dog is just a convenient excuse to keep you at arm's length. Do you really want to sign up for more of that from this guy? Edited to add: I didn't answer the original question. I think I'd choose the person over the dog. But I don't have a dog (I want one badly but housing will not permit) so maybe it's too easy for me to say that. Edited June 7, 2012 by serial muse
fortyninethousand322 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 And, pit bulls tend to want to beat up other dogs and kill bunnies and kitties. So does mine. He's a small little schnauzer terrier, but on multiple occasions he's tried to fight and bite other animals, including much bigger dogs. Once broke out of his leash to try to fight two dobermans (at one time), who wanted no part in the fight. There are good dogs and bad dogs. I don't think any dog is innately dangerous. All would bite your head if you're wearing steak on it though.
2sure Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 I would have to choose my dog, if only because she depends on me, she needs me - I cant leave her. And I could never really like or trust someone who didnt like dogs.
Mme. Chaucer Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 Ok, then. Can you please point me to the chromosome that includes the 'wants to kill puppies and kitties' gene? High prey drive is certainly genetically linked. So is a specific type of "rage" behavior. So is sound sensitivity, and in fact, there are recent studies that prove without debate that there is a genetic link to a propensity for language skills which the border collie has (inadvertently) been selectively bred for. It's very exciting research. You seem to be unfamiliar with the Dog Genome Project. Oh wait. You can't. That's my job being that i'm a doctor the field. While you're a 'trainerwho apparently is able to google outdated studies and blatantly made up information well. Fortunately it is MY job (along with my peers) to create accurate, precise studies, research, data testing, etc. Hopefully other dog professionals actually read them instead deeming heresy and their 'personal experience' fact. That was rude, arrogant and ignorant. By responding to my post this way you've represented your grasp on the subject matter of your professional field in a poor light. Accurate, precise studies, testing, etc. in a lab certainly have their place and value, but they don't replace evidence from the field. The people who have been able to break exciting new ground are able to encompass and respect both. Whether you are a doctor or not, you don't necessarily have more knowledge and / or experience that people who work with animals all day, every day. And you have no idea about my own education or breadth of reading, which I won't bother defending to you but will assure you has not been influenced by Google or "made up studies."
fortyninethousand322 Posted June 7, 2012 Posted June 7, 2012 I would have to choose my dog, if only because she depends on me, she needs me - I cant leave her. And I could never really like or trust someone who didnt like dogs. There are people who are allergic to dogs or even specific kinds of dog dander. There are certain dogs that my brother can't (or shouldn't) be around for long periods when indoors. It happens.
Recommended Posts