Pets- unpopular viewpoint

[Jayco-noslide]

First, we do not dislike dogs per se. We used to have one and several family members have really cute, friendly dogs. Now the "however" part. Wife and I feel our culture is increasingly moving toward "dog friendly" to the excess and that we have to start speaking up for the segment of the population that do not feel dogs should be allowed in stores, restaurants, etc. OK for seeing eye dogs on a leash but not for other companion types of dogs. You should not allow your dog to go up to someone just assuming they will want to make over it unless invited. Dog should always be leashed in a campground, pick up all waste and it's the owner's responsibility that the dog does not bark often whether owner is present or not. I could go on. We realize most owners are responsible but too many are not in campgrounds and other public areas.

[toedtoes]

Happytraveler wrote:
The majority of the places we RV or dry camp I have never came across unleashed dogs or horrible pet owners. I guess we're lucky. Perhaps one time we were camped next to a chow. The owners of the dog were very nice people, but we were warned the dog could attack people and dogs, please don't get close to him. I was a nervous wreck the whole time.

At home we take our dog Katie to Pet Friendly places like Lowe"s, RJ'S Cafe, DeNault's Hardware Store, Newport Center and Hogan's Bait & Tackle. She's in second heaven because they give her treats and she loves the attention the people give her.
Our other dog was a different story we couldn't take him out because he had a problem with other dogs. He loved kids, people, parties, 4th of July, etc. LOL. One time he got in a fight with a Mastiff, always had to be the alfa dog. We always took him camping with us, but never did we take him to dog friendly places.

I have a dog with fear issues. She's doing really good, but I warn folks to keep their distance and not crowd her. I've seen that look of fear on their faces and have a hard time with it. The only way for Batdog to keep getting better is to have positive experiences with people. But people will react poorly to my warning. I really love the times we run into a dog-knowledgable person who is willing to help Batdog see the positives to new people.

[BCSnob]

Tyson also brought along a new toy -- a doll named "Darwin" -- which Chaser had never seen before. When he asked her to find it in the other room, Chaser could locate the doll amid the other toys, inferring that the new object was connected with the new word.

https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/world-smartest-dog-nova-special-shows-border-collie/story%3fid=12875750

This dog learned the name over over 1000 toys and was able to locate and retrieve a new toy associated with a new name.

Btw retrieving toys is not an instinct bred into Border Collies.

[Happytraveler]

The majority of the places we RV or dry camp I have never came across unleashed dogs or horrible pet owners. I guess we're lucky. Perhaps one time we were camped next to a chow. The owners of the dog were very nice people, but we were warned the dog could attack people and dogs, please don't get close to him. I was a nervous wreck the whole time.

At home we take our dog Katie to Pet Friendly places like Lowe"s, RJ'S Cafe, DeNault's Hardware Store, Newport Center and Hogan's Bait & Tackle. She's in second heaven because they give her treats and she loves the attention the people give her.
Our other dog was a different story we couldn't take him out because he had a problem with other dogs. He loved kids, people, parties, 4th of July, etc. LOL. One time he got in a fight with a Mastiff, always had to be the alfa dog. We always took him camping with us, but never did we take him to dog friendly places.

[toedtoes]

We weren't responding to your comment, we were responding to streaminhope's belief that dogs can only react based on instinct or training. That is outdated and has been proven wrong with pretty much every species out there. Animals do have thought processes and reasoning skills - they just don't apply them the same way.

[Crowe]

LOL y'all! Apparently you ALL missed the :B symbol! It was a JOKE! Sheesh! 🙂 I'm not even going to respond to the "kid in a wolf pack" or the "outdated thinking" comments. Really? Y'all need to LIGHTEN UP!

[dturm]

Not humans, dogs. To view all dog behavior as trained or instinctive doesn't match current evidence.

2007 Study

Just one quick google search.

[streaminhope]

dturm wrote:

streaminhope wrote:

Crowe wrote:
They have no reasoning skills, and that is why we are fully responsible for them.

Who, the kids or the dogs? :B

Here are your words. They equally apply to parenting children.

Yes indeed.

Children do have reasoning skills. They can reason that what they do is right or wrong on an emotional level and why it is right or wrong. Animals only know instinctively if they will be rewarded or punished. They do not know the *why* of that reward or punishment. If they knew the *why* then we wouldn't need animals on leashes, laws regarding safety concerning them, or animal and owner training.

You've got a really outdated concept of animal abilities regarding reasoning. Granted they are NOT human and don't reason in a human's frame of reference, but the do reason and problem solve. That does not make them human, but their abilities are far beyond what you are asserting.

Hmmm..what is your proof my beliefs about the critical thinking skills of humans is outdated? I'm waiting for my beautiful Aussie lying at the foot of my bed to design and construct a suspension bridge.

[toedtoes]

dturm wrote:

PUCampin wrote:
Anyway, I suppose this kind of left the rails, but I always appreciate a good discussion and different points of view. I even agree that the ADA is not written as well as it could be and has been the subject of abuse, but I know without it we would have a lot more difficulty doing normal things with my child.

And this is why the ADA happened in the first place. Thanks for the perspective.

Our societal tendency recently has been to trash anything or everything that has a flaw rather than seeing the benefits and trying to fix them.

Not trying to be political, just making an observation 🙂

I don't think I've ever agreed with you more! 🙂

[dturm]

PUCampin wrote:
Anyway, I suppose this kind of left the rails, but I always appreciate a good discussion and different points of view. I even agree that the ADA is not written as well as it could be and has been the subject of abuse, but I know without it we would have a lot more difficulty doing normal things with my child.

And this is why the ADA happened in the first place. Thanks for the perspective.

Our societal tendency recently has been to trash anything or everything that has a flaw rather than seeing the benefits and trying to fix them.

Not trying to be political, just making an observation 🙂

[PUCampin]

valhalla360 wrote:

PUCampin wrote:
Like many situations, the laws and definitions exist...

Sorry but ADA is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Not so much the service animal specifically but just in general as I deal with it for work and while I make extra money complying, it's frustrating to watch all the waste that goes into meeting it.

Your post is a great theory but unfortunately, ADA is a poorly written piece of legislation and the disabled and their interest groups have for a long time vilified anyone who doesn't bow down to their interpretation of ADA. ADA should have been written with very specific requirements of what, when and where actions are needed with the legislature updating the act if new needs are found, so that they could be vetted by the larger public.

It basically boils down, to you have to provide "reasonable" accommodation but they never defined what "reasonable" is and over the years the definition grows ever larger and it's special interest groups doing the redefining.

The "comfort" animals are a total joke but by the definition you gave, if you can get a doctor to sign off, it's easy to meet your definition. If the law was very specific, they could have defined the tasks covered by service animals and "comfort" animals wouldn't qualify. Plus asking your questions would likely get a shocked and horrified response (whether you can legally ask or not).

ADA: good in theory bad in actual application.

Not sure I made my point as concisely as I could have. I was not speaking to the ADA in general or holding up the ADA as a paragon of legislation, but referencing part of it to illustrate that there is actually a definition of what constitutes a service animal, and that most comfort animals and support animals do not meet the requirements. The third requirement is also a limitation. The dog must not cause a disruption in public, otherwise the dog can be legally excluded. So legally, a poorly behaving animal can be tossed from a store or location regardless if it is wearing a service vest or not.

The problems and difficulties are multifaceted.

First in respect to service animals, there is no identifying certificate for the animal. I believe originally it was assumed the task the animal performed would be as obvious as any accessible device, such as a guide dog. As service animals began to venture into the realm of psychiatric aids, it has become muddy, and this is where much of the abuse is coming from. With no official certificate, anyone can put on a vest and say it is a service animal.

Second, enforcement of the limitations. Most legitimate service animals will be obvious. Of the not so obvious ones, The two questions legally allowed can ferret out some of the not legitimate animals. Example, "What task is your animal trained to perform? He can detect when I am having a seizure" Is it perfect, no. Also, like stated above, the animal must not cause a disruption in public. Legitimate trained service animals RARELY cause a disruption. If an animal causes a disruption it can legally be excluded. The issue is most people, owners, managers are afraid of confrontation, afraid of offending someone, afraid of reprisal, and are often bullied into accepting when they should not have to. And because the individuals with the fake service animal are not challenged, they are emboldened to continue and will become offended and incensed at the slightest. Like I noted in my original post, you do not see comfort animals at places that are not afraid to challenge. I have seen service animals at Disneyland many times, it was obvious what their task was. I have NEVER seen comfort animals or any animal that is just being carried around. I am sure it has been tried.

In regards to the ADA, in some respects it has to be vague because disabilities and situations are so varied. If necessary "reasonable" can be defined by a judge, but if you get too specific in the legislation, you run the risk of excluding some of those it is meant to help. However I agree with you in that it is used to beat others over the head, and I have a disabled child!

There are also other laws that come into play that contradict and muddy things further. HIPAA does not allow asking about the disability or to ask for proof of the disability. Sometimes this makes it hard to provide accommodations when you have to beat around the bush what need accommodating! As a parent of a disabled, and everyone in our community I know, we would all be more that happy to demonstrate why and what accommodations are needed for our child. This has made it very easy to abuse the system, and it is almost always the fakers who make excessive demands and give the rest of us a bad name.

You mentioned specifics, even when specifics are spelled out they can be abused. Not sure where you are located, but since you deal with the ADA you may have heard of the Trevor Law Group cases in California. This law firm made their money by shaking down small business under the ADA. They would send someone in and look for frivolous violations, such as the mirror being an inch over the minimum required height in the bathroom, and then file a lawsuit. Later it was proven that many times the individual the suit was filed on behalf of never even visited the business and the lawsuit was filed under the Unfair Competition Law. Then they would offer to settle the suit for around $3000, usually less than it would cost the business to go to court and fight the suit, so most business settled and paid. Eventually the lawyers were disciplined.

Anyway, I suppose this kind of left the rails, but I always appreciate a good discussion and different points of view. I even agree that the ADA is not written as well as it could be and has been the subject of abuse, but I know without it we would have a lot more difficulty doing normal things with my child.

[dturm]

streaminhope wrote:

Crowe wrote:
They have no reasoning skills, and that is why we are fully responsible for them.

Who, the kids or the dogs? :B

Here are your words. They equally apply to parenting children.

Yes indeed.

Children do have reasoning skills. They can reason that what they do is right or wrong on an emotional level and why it is right or wrong. Animals only know instinctively if they will be rewarded or punished. They do not know the *why* of that reward or punishment. If they knew the *why* then we wouldn't need animals on leashes, laws regarding safety concerning them, or animal and owner training.

You've got a really outdated concept of animal abilities regarding reasoning. Granted they are NOT human and don't reason in a human's frame of reference, but the do reason and problem solve. That does not make them human, but their abilities are far beyond what you are asserting.

[toedtoes]

Cybergrunt wrote:

Stefonius wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
Sorry but ADA is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Your post is a great theory but unfortunately, ADA is a poorly written piece of legislation...

ADA: good in theory bad in actual application.

I agree wholeheartedly. It always makes me laugh when I pull up to a DRIVE UP ONLY ATM, only to find a full set of instructions on it in Braille.

Until someone who is visually impaired gets a taxi/Uber to go to the ATM and uses said ATM, complete with Braille directions, from the backseat.
I've seen it happen and, yes, then it made sense to me.

Good point!

[toedtoes]

streaminhope wrote:

Crowe wrote:
They have no reasoning skills, and that is why we are fully responsible for them.

Who, the kids or the dogs? :B

Here are your words. They equally apply to parenting children.

Yes indeed.

Children do have reasoning skills. They can reason that what they do is right or wrong on an emotional level and why it is right or wrong. Animals only know instinctively if they will be rewarded or punished. They do not know the *why* of that reward or punishment. If they knew the *why* then we wouldn't need animals on leashes, laws regarding safety concerning them, or animal and owner training.

I'd argue that all animals have reasoning skills. They just don't necessarily "get" our social concepts. So while they can reason, things like eating at a table don't make sense.

Kids appear to reason better than animals because our social concepts are built into their system.

If we put a kid in the middle of a wolf pack, that kid would have a hard time reasoning his way through life because the social concepts are not hardwired into him.

[Cybergrunt]

Stefonius wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
Sorry but ADA is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Your post is a great theory but unfortunately, ADA is a poorly written piece of legislation...

ADA: good in theory bad in actual application.

I agree wholeheartedly. It always makes me laugh when I pull up to a DRIVE UP ONLY ATM, only to find a full set of instructions on it in Braille.

Until someone who is visually impaired gets a taxi/Uber to go to the ATM and uses said ATM, complete with Braille directions, from the backseat.
I've seen it happen and, yes, then it made sense to me.

[streaminhope]

Crowe wrote:
They have no reasoning skills, and that is why we are fully responsible for them.

Who, the kids or the dogs? :B

Here are your words. They equally apply to parenting children.

Yes indeed.

Children do have reasoning skills. They can reason that what they do is right or wrong on an emotional level and why it is right or wrong. Animals only know instinctively if they will be rewarded or punished. They do not know the *why* of that reward or punishment. If they knew the *why* then we wouldn't need animals on leashes, laws regarding safety concerning them, or animal and owner training.