Anxious dogs, like anxious people, need help managing and reducing distress
undark.orgA lot of this just sounds like... dog training? Gradually getting them used to things with positive reinforcement.
I do think though that dog's can pick up on their owners emotions. If you're thinking "Oh no, I'm going to leave Fido alone for three hours I'm really worried he's going to rip the house up or be really upset when I'm gone." rather than "I'm just nipping out. Fido sleeps most of the day anyway and will be fine." then the dog will pick up on that and become anxious.
> If evidence suggests that many dogs, like many humans, misbehave because they are struggling with emotions and anxiety, why do so many pet owners and trainers look to punishment as the solution, rather than addressing the emotions directly?
Same reason why so many people do the same to children - they're set in their views and are unwilling accept that they might be wrong.
Also, it's less work (at lesst in the short term). All the more reason to continue.
As a parent who has had to do a bunch of this work, I think a big missing piece in much of the dialogue around it is understanding how exactly the “gentle” style of engagement isn’t just indulging, tolerating, excusing, and even rewarding bad behaviour.
The official word is that adopting a gentle and emotionally aware stance has to be paired with a strong sense of boundaries, but it’s often very unclear how to differentiate between which part of the response to a given situation should be the boundary (“we don’t speak like that in this family; I won’t be responding until you talk to me in a respectful way”) vs the emotional deep dive (“it sounds like you’re processing some big feelings right now, let’s talk about what’s going on for you”).
Instead of engaging with the truly challenging parts of the approach, a lot of advocates model kind of what’s in the parent post— condescension, dismissal, and an assumption that the other party is simply unable or unwilling to learn how to do something that’s obviously superior.
I had to work on this alot too because my chi...well all happy families are alike but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
a gentle and emotionally aware stance has to be paired with a strong sense of boundaries,
To me, a strong sense of self if probably more useful.
Establishing boundaries presumes an expertise that doesn't exist.
Parenting is learned on the job.
Learned over the better part of a lifetime.
Or all of it since we learn parenting by being parented as children...from people who were learning on the job.
we don’t speak like that in this family; I won’t be responding until you talk to me in a respectful way
Are you prepared to walk the walk and kick your child out of the family for responding with "fuck you"?
Never mind that withholding conversation from a child is punishment?
"Please don't talk to me like that. I don't like it," is the simplest thing that might work. It's also a good way to talk to other people. Because human relationships boil down to a good will, negotiation, or violence.
Boundaries bound operating on goodwill.
I think what the OP was getting at is perfectly exemplified in this comment. A person who is set in their ways and unable to comprehend the emotional state of another being, just viewing the resulting behaviors as purely "bad"
At risk of attacking a straw man, do you believe it's ever possible to have a "bad" behaviour? When an adult throws a temper tantrum to an airplane stewardess, is that also something we should look on with "comprehension of another being's emotional state", or is it in fact entitlement, selfishness, poor regulation, and unrealistic expectations? Is that behaviour something we can agree on as being "bad"?
I think that some of this debate comes down to what the ultimate purpose of parenting is— is it to be an eternal safe space for our kids? Somewhere that they can always feel understood and welcomed and heard, where they'll never be asked to consider if their feelings reflect an accurate perception of the world, whether their attitudes have shaped how they experience certain situations, or if their own words and actions have helped create a circumstance they're now frustrated by? Or is parenting about preparing kids to ultimately become citizens of the real world, where teachers, colleagues, bosses, neighbours, doctors, police, airline staff and others will require a certain standard of behaviour and will have basically zero interest in whatever your "reasons" are for why that standard cannot be met at a particular moment.
In truth, the answer is somewhere in the middle. The best parents can both be that safe and listening space, while also gently challenging us to grow and do better (yes, even into adulthood). But I don't see a lot of that nuance from many gentle parenting advocates, who sound much more hard-line, casting non-believers as being "set in their ways", and often responding pretty negatively to parents' fatigue with the extremely exhausting work that it can be constantly taking on and processing the emotions of everyone around them.
On the other hand, there are now a bunch of voices calling for a more balanced approach than what one might find on Instagram and Tiktok:
- https://mashable.com/article/gentle-parenting-social-media-p...
- https://www.parents.com/parenting/better-parenting/style/gen...
- https://filterfreeparents.com/gentle-parenting-is-physically...
- https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/13/style/millennial-earnest-...
> But I don't see a lot of that nuance from many gentle parenting advocates
I see friends taking parenting courses, and raising their kids 'by the rules'. It seems so mechanical, and, from the behavior I see it isn't working very well either, just and endless battle against 'the rules'.
My kids are a bit older now, and looking back I see intuition is important in raising kids. You know your own boundaries, and can be strict about them, but you also love your kids, and can even enjoy and laugh seeing them push against rules and discovering their the world. A nice read on this is 'French children don't throw food' [1]
Trusting yourself and your kids makes you less likely to be angry or scream at them. I found raising your voice in many cases just means you don't trust yourself and you don't trust that your kids respect you.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/jan/20/french-childre...
> I found raising your voice in many cases just means you don't trust yourself and you don't trust that your kids respect you.
My current working theory is that toddler temper tantrums are this. I mean from the opposite direction; the kid is not on solid footing yet and doesn't think the grownups take them seriously enough.
For the longest while we were making the utmost effort to do the respectful parenting thing, but as he's growing to have very strong opinions that are not always reasonable, this is... harder.
Oh yes this is hard... When the kid has a strong opinion, raises voice or just tries to lure you into a discussion or fight. That's the moment where the parent is easily tricked.
Staying calm in such a moment can do wonders and de-escalate, but it's hard, especially when I'm tired and need a moment of quiet :)
I find it rather strange that you conflate the emotional state of a human whose brain is still rapidly developing with that of an adult. You can't possibly believe that those two things are even close to comparable
The idea that asking someone how they are feeling is an "emotional deep dive" is a portion of the problem. Asking a family member how they are feeling should not be considered an in-depth activity.
> The idea that asking someone how they are feeling is an "emotional deep dive" is a portion of the problem.
I would argue that the "emotional deep dive" example is not merely asking how someone is feeling.
> it sounds like you’re processing some big feelings right now, let’s talk about what’s going on for you
Speaking from experience when I was a kid, being spoken to in this manner always felt belittling.
> Speaking from experience when I was a kid, being spoken to in this manner always felt belittling.
I think a lot of it comes down to how people usually communicate with the kid.
Like I can’t possibly imagine my Dad saying “Looks like we got some big feelings here, want to talk about it?” It sounds so silly and patronizing.
But a “Boona, I can’t help unless you tell me what’s wrong” is completely normal to my ears.
For all intents and purposes they’re the same question though. I think kids just just know us more than we give them credit for, so if you pull out the “Journal approved parenting voice” when that’s not how you talk normally they’ll react accordingly.
Nothing about either phrasing sounds condescending to me. However, communication is more than words.
You can ask about feelings with a gentle tone, a supportive gaze at eye level, and a hand on the shoulder. Or you can do it from above with an eye roll and a sarcastic bite.
I can easily see a frustrated parent giving in to their own emotions and using the latter approach.
In some families, conversations are weaponized. The question might feel belittling because it is used used to belittle.
Questions often reflect status relationships where some people have the privilege to expect answers and thus carry a demeanor of expecting answers to their questions.
Questions are used as a reminder that the other person is obligated to answer.
Well, you might be somewhat right, but that sort of talk never came from my parents. It always came from authority figures at school or summer camps.
I think it is an in-depth activity, actually. I can’t recall a single time in my childhood where my being defiant, tardy, intentionally boundary pushing, fighting people or otherwise annoyingly rebellious has been responded to with asking what are my feelings that are making me want to do that behavior. I’m just told to quit it or $punishment.
It is if you were never really asked how you were feeling growing up.
I didn’t realize I could sit and process my feelings until I was in college.
And honestly, my upbringing was pretty stable as far as things go—my parents were weird, but whose weren’t.
> Asking a family member how they are feeling should not be considered an in-depth activity.
Why not?
Of all the people in the world I ask “how are you feeling” it’s my family that I both expect and receive the most in-depth answers and questions. These are people I live with and live with me, our emotions are deeply rooted and entwined with each other.
It's something for a trained professional to do, see...
> Same reason why so many people do the same to children
I'd extend that to all humans and all animals.
Many people can't even wrap their heads around NOT using punishment to control behaviour and react very negatively to the idea of treatment or interventions that, in their mind, look like "rewarding" the "bad" behaviour.
Punishment, aka negative reinforcement, can be required in some cases. For instance, if your dog learns they can jump on the counter to steal food, then there isn't really a way to train that out of them with positive reinforcement. That doesn't mean yelling at a dog per se, but using a loud sound or might mousetrap on the counter can help discourage the behavior. "Timeout" is also a very common dog training strategy.
Ehhhh, much like children it really depends on the dog.
I have a counter surfer at home, and we tried the negative reinforcement, time-outs, loud noises ect, and all it did was give her food aggression where she never had any before.
Training leave it and removing opportunities for her to steal worked out way better long term. Now if she finds a chicken bone or something on a walk I can just take it from her when before when she’d do her damndest to hide it.
> Training leave it and removing opportunities for her to steal worked out way better long term.
Yea, that's what we did to, but I don't really consider that training the dog not to jump on the counter.
Punishment and negative reinforcement are different things, but it can be a lot of work to structure positive or negative reinforcement for situations like jumping up on the counter to steal food.
They're also upset or angry, which leads to lashing out which tends to be punitive in nature.
They are failing to control their own emotions.
> Same reason why so many people do the same to children - they're set in their views and are unwilling accept that they might be wrong
There are plenty who believe that withdrawing privileges is an entirely normal and appropriate response when children misbehave.
This isn't punishment, although some children consider it to be.
Actually, it's the definition of punishment: inflicting or imposing penalties as retribution for an offense. Withdrawing privileges is an imposed penalty. idk if it's appropriate or not, but it's objectively punishment not just an opinion children have.
> Actually, it's the definition of punishment: inflicting or imposing penalties as retribution for an offense.
Children are not small adults, but they are surprisingly capable of understanding incentives.
"If you behave well you can have ice cream. If you behave badly, you don't get ice cream. It's your choice."
It's awful to teach children that behaviour doesn't matter. Actions do have consequences.
This is still punishment, even if you believe it's for their own good that "actions do have consequences".
You can't just redefine it as "not punishment" because you want to use that method in child rearing.
> This is still punishment, even if you believe it's for their own good that "actions do have consequences"
"Actions have consequences" as a statement isn't really up for much debate, it's more of a observation on how the universe works. If we fall far enough, we hurt outselves.
Gravity isn't punishing us when we fall, even if it may feel like that at times - the scars on my right arm from a cycling accident last year are still visible.
"Actions have consequences" is explaining why you are punishing your child.
I'm not saying you're a bad parent for punishing your child, I'm saying you could be a better parent if you stopped leaning on punishment as a parenting tool.
Also, stop telling your child you aren't punishing them because they will ALWAYS remember that bullshit. At least own up to the fact that you are punishing them and tell them why.
It’s called negative punishment, and is pretty ineffective at eliciting the desired behavior. Positive reinforcement is the only way to spotlight the behavior you want by rewarding it. Punishment is more like learning the shape of a room by stubbing your toes on the walls. You’ll eventually get it but only after trying everything else you can think of.
> It’s called negative punishment
It isn't:
"[..] people confuse negative reinforcement with punishment, but these are two different concepts"[0]
[0] https://www.webmd.com/parenting/what-to-know-about-negative-...
"Negative punishment is taking something pleasurable away to decrease the behavior. An example of negative punishment is taking away a toy if your child hits their sibling with it."
Telling a child they're not being punished as you punish them is gaslighting.
"It's for your own good so it's not punishment."
It is amazing the mental hoops people can jump through.
> It is amazing the mental hoops people can jump through
Our eldest had his computer briefly confiscated not that long ago. He was, of course, cross with me when it happened.
The day afterwards he came to me and thanked me for taking it away(!)
Him: "I was spending way too much time playing games, I see that now" Me: "You're welcome to have it back" Him: "No, I'm not sure I want it in my room. It's too much of a distraction"
There is a great book on dog training called How to Behave So Your Dog Behaves by Sophia Yin. The basic premise is that all animals, including humans, are "trained" 100% of the time. That is to say, there is no explicit training time vs. non-training time. Each time an animal does anything, they either get a positive or negative reward. E.g. if a dog barks and you pay attention to it, then the dog learns to bark for your attention.
A corollary to this is that it's very hard to get a dog to unlearn something once it has learned it, especially if you can't remove the positive reward. For many dogs, behaviors like barking, chewing, and digging are self-soothing. That is to say the dog feels rewarded just for performing the actions when stressed. For this reason, battling entrenched separation anxiety is very difficult and takes many months, as the author experienced.
I wish this information was more well known. Dogs, as puppies, are very malleable, and you can raise a well adjusted dog pretty easily provided you're willing to put in a lot of work for the first few months of life. Once dogs reach adulthood, things become much harder as you're having to unlearn entrenched behaviors in addition to teaching new ones. This is especially important to understand if you're considering rescuing a dog. Rescuing adult dogs is noble, but you're basically playing the lottery with potential problematic behavioral issues.
I wonder if this differs from wolves? I sometimes think about just how much we have evolved dogs to mirror us in so many different ways.
In other words: by selecting for responsiveness to human emotions, to what degree have we made dogs' brains more like our own?
Now I'm going to cuddle my pup Henry.
> Now I'm going to cuddle my pup Henry.
If you're American there is a big chance that you're using the word pup for a dog of any age. This in itself is a tell-tale sign of the way many people - especially those who are wont to write or speak about their dogs in public places - think about them, as permanent juveniles who will never "grow up".
He's 11 months old tomorrow. I guess I could have said "young dog" instead.
As for "pup" think of it like a term of endearment similar to sweetie, babe, honey, etc etc.
> permanent juveniles who will never "grow up".
The removal of testes/ovaries before puberty has something to do with that.
Go to the third world and look at the dogs in the street. They have teats for nursing puppies and balls for making them, all plain as day. What dogs look like in developed countries isn't natural.
> look at the dogs in the street
I wonder why there are so many dogs in the street ;-)
There's nowhere where dogs are "natural." They're a species that was bred to the whims and desires of humans, almost always to the detriment of their evolutionary fitness.
My older dog was a stray as a puppy and we give her fluoxetine(commonly called Prozac) to help with anxiety. Even after years of training we have issues with trying to walk her during daylight because she crumbles in fear. Our other dog being present gives her some confidence but they both also react more to other dogs when they think they have to protect the other, so it's a daily struggle.
Vets give Prozac to dogs?
You can legally give a dog or most animals pretty much anything so long as you remain in compliance with prevention of animal cruelty laws. You can get medication at a farmer's market or similar that'd be highly regulated for human consumption, so long as it is marked appropriately.
dogs can take all sorts of human prescriptions, including allergy meds and pain meds. also OTC like benadryl. it's kind of mind blowing. of course, some meds will simply kill them, so uh, do your research.
Of all the medications that we've gotten for our dogs over the years, the Prozac has also been one of the cheapest. That's without any pet insurance.
Puppy Prozac is apparently very common.
yep. My rescue was on fluoxetine + occasionally xanax until it complicated with her epilepsy medication
You'd be surprised. There was an old story where a pet chimp went berserk mauled its owner and they found xanax in its system.
Is there a direct connection between falling birth rates and treating animals as if they were beloved children? It seems like these animals evolutionary strategy is akin to that of the cuckoo bird.
> Is there a direct connection between falling birth rates and treating animals as if they were beloved children?
Yes, definitely. The cats sabotaged the economy to increase financial insecurity, and the dogs infiltrated r/Parenting to raise human parenting standards to unattainble levels. As a result, people are no longer willing to have babies, and both species have raised their living standards, enjoying the good life and laughing behind our backs. /s
The only evolutionary strategy at play here is dog breeders.
Also, it’s important not to overly anthropomorphize evolution. It’s not as though animals are choosing their evolutionary strategy, so I find this language misleading.
Is it important to not overly anthropomorphize dogs and cats? Because that’s far more common than doing so for evolution.
The film Children of Men missed this part from the book, which is regrettable because it was such an interesting little world building piece.
The film showed pets everywhere and advertisements on transit for a pet fashion spring collection.
It glossed over what was in the book. It got weird.
Glossed over is too strong for me but subjective. Saying the movie missed the connection made it sound absent.
Don't know why you're downvoted. Most Americans seems to put in more effort into their dogs, than people used to with their children 100 years ago.
Take care of your kid like you'd a long-lived dog, and that's enough attention for long enough. By the end of it, the kid has grown into an adult.
The problem is that parents are expected to parent too much. American car centric infrastructure affects this a lot. But, latch key kids turned out just fine, and there is nothing wrong with that model.
Pets may not be actively pursuing a parasitic relationship with humans, but it does appear to be manifesting in that form for certain lonely people.
Haven't pets, especially dogs, been treated as part of the family for a really long time (thousands of years)?
I can't remember where I read this now, but I seem to recall that dogs were primarily outside companions until recently; the invention of flea/tick controls helped ease their transition inside. I had an inside dog growing up that got fleas one time. It was definitely a lesson in making sure that sort of thing never happened again.
> It seems like these animals evolutionary strategy is akin to that of the cuckoo bird.
Animals have a dual strategy.
They can be part of the family or they can be a working animal.
> Is there a direct connection between falling birth rates and treating animals as if they were beloved children?
I could see treating animals as children being caused by falling birth rates. The opposite seems unlikely, since people have kept pets for a very long time.
It seems like they are like Tylenol for the child nurturing instinct. It doesn’t get rid of it completely but you can get on with your day.
This is very coincidental with PJ Vogt new podcast "Search Engine", they released a preview episode in the last days titled "How Sad Are Monkeys In The Zoo" [1] that tackles this problem of animal emotions. I was very surprised to learn that most animals in Zoos are on constant anti-depression and anti-anxiety prescriptions.
https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/welcome-to-search-engine
Edit: typo
Treating dogs like humans is very detrimental to the dogs, more than detrimental, actively harmful.
I'm ok when seeing adults doing that to their kids (i.e. treating said kids as grown-ups), after all they're their kids and I don't have children of my own, but when I see the same sort of behaviour being transplanted to handling dogs (or pets, more generally), then I get really angry. Again, dogs, and animals, are not humans, applying "human-like treatment" to them means harming said dogs and said animals.
And more to the point of the article, as the owner of a very sensitive Border Collie myself the "secret" of avoiding separation anxiety for your dog is not to treat your every home departure like you're heading off to the Antarctic, treat it like it's nothing, like you're just going to get rid of the trash. No matter if you're gone for 5 minutes or for 4-5 hours. This applies for both leaving the house and getting back to the house.
over the years i've trained some anxiety out of my rescue dog by saying "okay i'll be back" every time i leave home without him. even just to take out the trash or get the mail.
he now knows that it means to not get up and start pacing anxiously to go with me or to try to follow me out the door. usually he just goes in his easychair (it's turned into his doggie daybed, basically) or lays down in the sunlight. my guest bath is also his little cave, since it's usually dark and the floor is cool. i've seen him on camera just hang out in these spots until i get back.
paired with the standard issue "let's go for a walk" or "let's go outside" it seems to really communicate what exactly is going on so he isn't confused. i've also added "peepee?" to ask if he wants to pee without making him think we're going for a long walk. this also works with food related words ... it's still kind of crazy to me he actually knows what i'm saying and will react according to what he actually wants at the moment. i just have to cycle through the words.
A short "okay i'll be back" is more than ok, I'm doing it with my dog also from time to time, I was thinking mostly of the people that cuddle their dog before they leave and just as they return home, that isn't healthy for the dog, especially if he's still a puppy.
Dogs are pack animals who are kept as isolated individuals alone in apartments by workers who are away all day. No shit they're anxious.
Relevant: https://youtu.be/LoEotny5_jI?t=95
I love dogs, but aren't there bigger issues in this world that we should focus on first?
Millions of children on this planet are malnourished or suffering because of wars, climate change or just bad government. Is it ethical to pay a fortune for magnetic brain stimulation of your dog, if somewhere else in the world several people's lives could be saved with that money?
Yes, obviously there are bigger issues in the world to focus on than dog anxiety.
But if this is your acid test for ethical living then you’re going to quickly discover that everyone with disposable income lives unethically. Which is honestly probably true but nobody wants to hear it.
Lol 99% of what people buy is not as valuable as the marginal dollar spent on third world malaria nets or whatever. Don't worry about it.
I bet if we spent some time going through your finances, we could find plenty of places where you're spending money needlessly that could be saving lives. Are you eating out at nice restaurants? Do you have a new-ish car that you could trade in for an older model? Did you decide to have children?
Unless you've optimized your life by going into the highest-paying career you can and giving virtually all of your money (minus the bare minimum you need to survive) to help those in need, I don't think this is a reasonable argument to be making.
Textbook (caricatural) whataboutism [1], that's why you are probably getting downvoted.
One of the problem with this argument being that it's not the same set of people that can/will work on these separate issues, and solving one does not prevent solving the other one. Also, the money spent for one issue would not necessarily go to the other issue anyway: they are not linked.
Structural issues with our worldwide distribution of wealth system are causing climate change and poverty, not taking care of the dogs, and this is what needs to be fixed.
> Millions of children on this planet are malnourished or suffering because of wars, climate change or just bad government.
This assumes every child is a net positive for its immediate group, its local group, its country and the global world as a whole.
While you can argue for the first, the latter 3 are not evident.
> Is it ethical to pay a fortune for magnetic brain stimulation of your dog, if somewhere else in the world several people's lives could be saved with that money?
Is it ethical for you to be typing this comment, whereas you could be working instead to earn money to buy food to save several people's lives somewhere in the world?
Not directly related to your comment, but:
I’ve always been weirdly frugal and I think this is the real reason that I don’t admit. Seems unfair to spend a lot of money on anything.
I would say that any kind of expense beyond what you’d pay as a poor college student would fall into this category, though, if you want to be consistent.
I’m not however donating much, though. My plan is to build a pile and donate it when I pass.
Why are you posting here? Shouldn’t you sell your computer and go practice what you preach?
I'm amazed by the cynicism in the reactions here. I was trying to make the point, that if you have heart enough to spend a serious amount of money on your dog's wellbeing, shouldn't you consider spending it on saving somebody's life instead? Or at least some part of it.
The reactions vary from, the dying child is thousands of miles away (and your unhappy dog is not), to, if you're not maximizing your life on donating every possible penny you can spare to charity, you have no right to post a thought like this. Is this really the common view on HN on how we should live our lives?
You are missing the point like no one's business. You seem smart, I'm sure you can figure out a reason besides cynicism that your comment attracted a bunch of criticism.
This is whataboutism at its finest. You aren't wrong that there are other problems. Do you really think that a pet owner taking better care of their dog instead is going to make an impact on child hunger thousands of miles away?
If everyone that read your comment decided to donate, it might.
No chance. Donating is not a solution to world hunger.
It could be if the money goes towards helping to build food production systems as opposed to buying food. I wonder if charities do this? Buying food just kicks the can down the road for sure.
That won't help either. The problem in those areas is local and national corruption. If you bring farming equipment into an impoverished third-world community and teach them how to use it, the local warlord/drug gang just comes in after you've left and steals or destroys the farming equipment.
It's an unfortunate fact of reality that foreign aid, though very well-intentioned, benefits the rulers and generals of corrupt governments more than it benefits their citizens. See "The Dictator's Handbook" by Mesquita and Smith.
No it doesn't. Any food production systems requires significant upkeep and security. As long as it's not solved bottom up the problem will continue to exist. Just look at the dilapidated schools in Africa. The gangs/corrupt governments will simply steal the food production facilities.
The only solution is to uplift the entire country, anything highly targeted will not work.
Maybe what dogs need is control of their own species?
Just stop manufacturing them...
But... on the internet nobody knows you're a dog.
With dogs approaching the quasi religious status, quasi sacred status of sacred cow here in America, how long before laws are passed mandating annual checkups for dogs?
Some manner of obligation to care for your pet (any pet) should exist. This has nothing to do with religion and is all about honoring the commitment you entered when you decided to take care of an animal.
I have no idea how laws got brought into this conversation but some people absolutely do worship their dogs, as someone who doesn’t really like animals and is highly allergic to pet dander, it’s frankly quite annoying and insane.
I was bitten by a dog once and the owners immediately started trying to explain to me why it was actually my fault that I, standing there minding my own business, made the dog bite me! They eventually remembered that I got bit and asked if I was hurt.
I lived in an apartment building next to some people with a new puppy who barked at night - when I complained to them about it I got an earful about how its ok for them to violate noise ordinances and disturb my sleep, it’s a puppy, it can’t control itself, how could I possibly be so mean!?
I refused an invitation to a party once because they had a lot of dogs and I’m very allergic - I was told I was being super rude and that I should just pop some meds and get over it. I asked them why they expected me to make myself miserable for the dogs sake when they could just kennel it for the weekend?
I own fish - the amount of times someone has told me that my pet is “lame” or “silly” or “boring” and that I should have gotten a dog is ridiculous. Like fuck off.
TL;DR Dog owners can be really obnoxious and self-righteous. There’s a mutual understanding that if people can’t control their children, they are bad parents. But not being able to control your dog is for some reason much more accepted.
You have no idea how laws got brought into the conversation? Well if there's a law requiring dogs to be physically examined every year and that would be what you call a law... Also people are bringing in stuff about registration and shots and so forth. Those are also called laws
I was confused because no such laws are advocated for nor even suggested in the article, which is what you were replying to in your original comment. It seems like you literally just invented the idea just to be mad about
Okay, I see it okay yeah we always have room for one more law. There's always more room
Osobo said nothing about laws.
Are they not? Dog licenses require rabies shots, and vets require checkups for shots at least around here.
Registration and shots are mandatory everywhere I’ve lived too. Sounds mandated to me.
I’ve always assumed it has nothing to do with me or my dog, but is to protect others from my dog.
Laws about registration and shots vary a lot in the US from one state or municipality to the next.
And health insurance providers package additional coverage for veterinary expenses with certain plans.