Just my 2 cents, If they are working dogs, used to herd I think you could look at them as livestock, but most folks develope a human to dog bond. Such as most dogs will give their lives to protect their human master. Most folks that have dogs and have developed that bond, think enough of that dog, that they hate to put them in the same catagory as livestock. It would be kind of like refering to your family as you people. Sure they are people, but they deserve more respect than that. They mean more to them than that. Eddie

 

Yes, that sounds about right with pet dogs where you develop a personal connection, like a friendship with an animal. Livestock in my mind, is something you keep out back for useful purposes, not actively participating in an emotional attachment with the animal. I suppose breeding dogs could fall into this category, maybe. The puppies do need to be socialized and attachments developed so they make good pets for the people who buy them.

Maybe it's because they aren't intended for food? Unless you're in Korea.

This is a good question, and has been on my mind lately.

 

I was afraid someone was going to ask that. sigh.

Ok, technically, dogs ARE classed as livestock by the USDA, and they are SUPPOSED to be regulating breeders who sell wholesale. How effective their oversight is can be open to debate.

There are a number of problems with trying to raise dogs as livestock, and they have nothing to do with J. Q. Public's image of dogs as cute little furballs. One of the problems is that dogs, by their nature, cannot be raised in confinement, or out on pasture like many other types of livestock. As pickapeppa ponted out, the dogs have to be socialized from an early age in order to make good pets. The same is true if they are intended as working dogs. if you were going to raise them for food, socialization might not be an issue, but since there is presently no legal market for dog in this country I won't even address that possibility.

You can do an internet search for puppymills, or even Backyard breeders, and find a literal TON of information. Much of it is hystrionics from bleeding heart pet lovers. BUT, beyond all of that, there are enormous costs to society when puppies who are not properly raised are dumped on animal shelters, humane societies, rescue groups, or some poor unsuspecting rural resident/farmer. There are huge costs incurred when poorly bred/socialized dogs attack children, elderly people, and other innocent victims. There are huge financial/environmental costs incurred when large amounts of canine fecal matter are not disposed of properly- this happens quite often with large scale dog breeders. With farm animals, the manure can be turned into an asset and sold as fertilizer or returned directly to the ground as fertilizer. That doesn't work with dog manure.

There are many, many problems with raising dogs as livestock. If you think you are interested in doing so, please sit down first and do the math. I would be very suprised if, after doing so, you thought you could raise dogs well and make enough of a profit for it to be worth your while.

 

Personally I think it's because we, humans, have gotten to a state where we require emotional support from a pet. It happens to an extent in other animals, I see it a lot in ducks (being a duck person) where people have pet ducks and wouldn't dream of eating one or don't even want to hear about other people eating them. A hear no evil see no evil type of thing or maybe ignorance is bliss? Obviously missing something in their diet, errrrr, life, I mean. It's perfectly okay for people to eat guinea pigs in other parts of the world and yet here if you mentioned it you'd be run out of town. Not that I'm in any hurry to eat a guinea pig or a dog, but I don't eat fish, either, and it's not because I love them soooo much.

I admit to my fair share of emotional & mental issues, none of which I medicate with a furry form of affection...but I also feel that people who rely on, i.e. can't function without, a dog or a cat for emotional or mental fulfillment obviously have issues.

 

I would imagine that it is probably because most dogs tend to live in a closer proximity to their people than typical livestock do (i.e. cows, pigs, etc). For instance, my dog is not a barnyard animal....she lives in the house. Therefore it is more important that she is properly 'socialized', that she has learned from as young an age as possible, the habits, etc that make her pleasant company. If I were raising a barnyard animal, like a cow for instance, it would be completely unnecessary for it to learn habits that made it a pleasant housemate because, obviously, it would never live in the house.

If I were to purchase a dog from a breeder, I would hate to find out that the puppy had been kept as a 'livestock' animal, learning none of the things that would make it a good companion. Since most people DO look for dogs that will be a pet/in close company, it would seem irresponsible to not prepare the hypothetical pups for the lives they will most likely lead. Because it would lead to customer dissatisfaction and miserable lives for said pups as they were evicted from one home after another.....for acting like a livestock animal inside the house.

So, I guess to sum all of that up, I think that dogs are generally not considered livestock....because most people do not acquire a dog for the purpose of having another barnyard/livestock animal.

Erin

 

I'd venture the thought that it's primarily North American and European humans who think of dogs as pets only.

We lived in Indonesia years ago. Dogs were food.

When the Vietnamese moved to parts of South Texas after the war, it became obvious that other cultures believed dogs are food, too.

Article on why eating dog is considered offensive in parts of the world and not others:
http://www.slate.com/id/2060840/

Articles about eating St. Bernards in China:
http://www.aapn.org/stbernard.html

 

Because our culture is irrational, contradictory, self-righteous and prone to
extremes?

The current wave seems to be a backlash to the dog-as-status-symbol fad.

Folks were buying whatever breed-of-the-month looked stylish on tv.
The dog frequently wound up neglected on a chain in the backyard, "collecting dust" like any other impulse purchase, so to speak.

How did we respond to that extreme and foolish trend? By embracing the next fanatical idea - that breeding dogs is akin to mortal sin.

 

My dogs are companions, service animals and "livestock" in the sense that I use them in limited draft animal use.

As companions, they are my first line of defense and bedwarmers on "3 dog winter nights".

As service animals, when i fall or cant get out of the bed or tub on my own, they have all developed personalities to team up and roll or prop me up when I cant get up in a sitting position on my own.

One dog can sense if I have a spasm attack pendining and will force me into a chair or onto the bed or couch before my musles go into hammer spasms.

When I do experience hammering leg spasms, two of them will lick massage my spasming legsto work the muscle tightness out.

I have sled dog type harnesses for all my large dogs and train them to pull my utility wagon.

My dogs are family members. They also take more of a part in my agronomics than my ex wife and her son did.

 

What makes it inappropriate to look at breeding dogs, the same way we look at breeding pigs, horses, cows, rabbits, etc? I understand that YOU (as in some folks) may think of your dog as a "child", but I don't think of dogs that way. I like dogs, in general, owned some good ones... but they were still animals.

I know this has the possibility to be a hot thread, please think twice before posting something hateful.

I dont think it is inappropriate. They are animals. I think they should be treated humanely, being subjected only to the minumum discomfort needed to get their intended use from them.

I think they are tools.

I enjoy them, but they certainly are not my parent, spouce, or child. Im not going to spend much in doctor fees for any dog.

 

I dont think it is inappropriate. They are animals. I think they should be treated humanely, being subjected only to the minumum discomfort needed to get their intended use from them.

I think they are tools.

I enjoy them, but they certainly are not my parent, spouce, or child. Im not going to spend much in doctor fees for any dog.

That's how I feel about it too. I like my dogs, but I will not mourn them like I would my child. I will not spend $2000 for surgery if they break their leg-- they'll be put out of their misery like any other animal I have. Over the years I've had many great dogs, but in my mind they are definitely more like livestock than a part of my family.

I'm not someone that lets dogs on the furniture-- they are animals not children. I do take them to the vet for shots and the older one has been neutered to calm his aggressive tendencies, but anything more than basic care is over the top IMO. Some people spend thousands per year on their dogs-- my friend has purchased insurance for his St. Bernard because she has expensive eye and liver problems. Me-- I'd get a different healthier dog.

Michelle

 

Just a thought, when man first noticed dog as a possible useful partner, or tool, he probably viewed him as another predator, not prey. Throughout time the dog has walked with humans as a partner in some cases. He helped man hunt, and faithfully guarded his possessions. I don't think any other animal is capable of the remarkable things a dog can learn to do for us.
Dogs have helped man become what we are today, and how many lives have they saved over time? I've heard of a few cases of somebody's border collie saving the farmer from a bull.
To me as a sheep farmer, my dogs are much more than companions. They are working partners. What other animal could single out a ewe with a lamb, and drive it to exactly where I want. After he's done with that job, he is willing to guard the house. Over time many dogs have become "pets" and no longer work for a living, so it would be a little hard to separate them from other livestock.
Dogs are still animals, but really aren't we?

 

Why aren't cats livestock or mice or hampsters? Because we make a distinction to seperate out our pets fron our food so more care is taken in thier production. Or so goes the plan. Since so many people just breed dogs for profit that care often goes out the window (not always) but just look at the shelters and its obvious the "production" of pets far outstrips the demand. The only use we give to dogs is as pets or working animals (not food) so it only makes sense to buy from people who are taking care when they produce a pet or working dog. The abundant supply is wasteful and too often of such poor quality people get hurt. So either you tighten the supply by insisting on certain quality testing or you find another use for the species. Why is it inappropriate to cosnider dogs as livestock? We don't need them as livestock or to meet any need as petstock and it costs a lot to dispose of that surplus. Why should someone make money when it takes tax dollars (yours and mine) to clean up the mess the "Biz" creates? Chemical companies can't polute our rivers and air without rules and enforced quality controls.

 

... just look at the shelters and its obvious the "production" of pets far outstrips the demand.

Not true. We can sell German Shepherd puppies as fast as we can breed them. People are willing to fork over a decent chunk of cash far a nice puppy. They are not willing to fork over any exorbitant amount for some demented, mongrel dog sitting in a shelter for six months waiting for the "appropriate family" to "adopt" him .

My view on dogs is this. They are absolutely no different whatsoever then a pig, chicken or goat on the homestead. If you choose to become attached to them that's your business, but it says nothing about how I should feel about my dogs. I happen to be a bit attached to my pigs, I don't say you have to feel the same way about yours.

My view on shelters is this. Animal shelters should be built beside the local rendering plant. Dogs and cats should be held for 48hours to give their owners a chance to reclaim them, then should be processed back into animal food, the same thing we do with any other worthless, unwanted animals. The imaginary "cost to society" created by unwanted animals disappears.

Pete

 

I agree with Pete that the supply doesn't overload the demand in some cases. We raise beagle dogs for rabbit hunters. Our dogs or pups go quickly and draw good prices but they are purebred, quality dogs.

 

Dogs are sometimes thought of as companions probably because of their intelligence level (definitely compared to stock) and because they threw their lot in with man thousands of years ago. A good working dog becomes your "right hand man", one who doesn't complain about the working conditions or the low pay.

 

I think it's silly for a person to inform someone else what they're supposed to feel. That goes for people insisting that everyone else should view dogs as cuddly pets, and also for people insisting that animals must have "their place" and people shouldn't feel affection for them beyond a certain determined point. Mind yer own beeswax, I say.

IMO, dogs are animals like any other, and people should be able to use them as working animals, food animals, or pets as they see fit, provided they abide by basic humane standards. The only reason dogs might need to be treated differently than most livestock is that livestock species are almost exclusively prey animals and therefore reasonably tractable. A dog kept in the same way we keep many farm animals - which is to say, mostly unsocialized - can be a very dangerous animal.

 

What makes it inappropriate to look at breeding dogs, the same way we look at breeding pigs, horses, cows, rabbits, etc?

Nothing. Lots of people do it. If you take care of the animals, it's OK, I guess.

Personally, I have more concern with the fact that breeders produce an oversupply of dogs every year in the U.S., many of which wind up abused, neglected, or euthanized. You don't see that with cows or other livestock we use for food. It seems dogs and cats are considered disposable by many, many people. When the new wears off, out they go on a chain, or out the back door of the car on a country road. We have taken care of many such drop-off dogs.

So my concern is not with how the animal is viewed (though I love my dogs), but rather with how an overabundance of dogs bred for profit are so easily abused or discarded. Perhaps the worst part of that is dog fighting, which is absolutely rampant in the rural South. Michael Vick is just one celebrity face of a huge underground problem.

 

I'm not talking about a sale of pups from breeder to owner just puppy mills. I agree with you Pete right up to

The imaginary "cost to society" created by unwanted animals disappears.

Its not an imaginary cost its real and yeah there should be a way for those responcible for that cost to pay for it and that's best done at point of sale. When everybody is happy with the idea of getting a dog and ready to part with cash. Then when it's let loose it's pick up is prepaid instead of coming out of property taxes! Why should I pay for domestic dogs turned loose that have to be picked up and put to sleep?

 

What makes it inappropriate to look at breeding dogs, the same way we look at breeding pigs, horses, cows, rabbits, etc? I understand that YOU (as in some folks) may think of your dog as a "child", but I don't think of dogs that way. I like dogs, in general, owned some good ones... but they were still animals.

I know this has the possibility to be a hot thread, please think twice before posting something hateful.

Nothing makes it inappropriate. The main reason you have people claiming special consideration for dogs is that they have anthromorphized them as "children", etc. I think that says more about the person than the dog.

I've had a number of dogs over the years. Some have been pets and some have been working animals.

Anyone who has raised various types of livestock knows it is much easier if you "socialize" the animals and train them to certain traits. How many of us know someone who got rid of an unmanageable animal?

Mike

 

My view on shelters is this. Animal shelters should be built beside the local rendering plant. Dogs and cats should be held for 48hours to give their owners a chance to reclaim them, then should be processed back into animal food, the same thing we do with any other worthless, unwanted animals. The imaginary "cost to society" created by unwanted animals disappears.

Nope, ship 'em to New England. You have a surplus, we have a shortage. It works out. Our dog, who is the best watchdog I've ever had and smart as a whip besides, came from a kill shelter in Arkansas.

 

Depends of the purpose of the dog. Why did you get the dog in the first place? You buy a poodle, cocker spaniel or such to be a house companion - they get treated like family. Can't eat family.

I look at our current ES as a trusted co-worker. Farm dog who does chores alongside me and watches the farm when we are away. There is responsibility and mutual trust involved. That sets that animal above the sheep and pigs. You don't eat co-workers. Ten years of faithful service got our Belgian a second $750 knee surgery and a quiet retirement instead of being put down. It's an entirely different bond with working dogs than house dogs.

It's like rabbits. You can buy a rabbit for food and you can buy a rabbit as a pet. Food rabbit is livestock. Pet rabbit - you'd have a hard time convincing the kids it's livestock and not family.

 

Another thought, I've only bred two litters of border collies, and rescued more pups and dogs than that.
Every pup I've had here is important to me in that I feel a responsibility to help it get a good future. I will not sell a pup to just anybody. I don't look at my dogs as pieces of meat to go into the food chain. There is a respect for canines in general as another intelligent being that deserves to be treated as such.
Comparing a dog to say a sheep there is a difference in intelligence, and mental well being. I've purchased second hand sheep , and never see any sign of stresses or abuse that they can't seem to get over. On the other hand some of the mistreated or poorly trained dogs I've gotten were obviously mentally messed up, and even with many hours, or months of training don't ever seem to get over some issues.
It is sad to see a dog that I knew as a promising young sheepdog end up abused, then never amount to a good working dog, or have a quality life like he should have. I do believe dogs can be sad, depressed, happy, and afraid. I don't think livestock have quite the same level of emotions, though some prey animals might come somewhat close. There are people who breed dogs as if they were livestock, with no concern for their inherent abilities, or intelligence. Dogs are at our mercy to be bred for no brains, poor temperaments, or whatever suits our fancy. I think some breeds of dogs do have the brains bred out of them, and maybe aren't any smarter than livestock. Hopefully those that believe in mass producing pets will stick to those dogs and not ruin good working breeds.

 

I don't think livestock have quite the same level of emotions, though some prey animals might come somewhat close.

I agree with most of your post, but don't agree with this part. Keep in mind that prey animals must always hide their feelings and weaknesses - it's how they stay alive. Predators can "act out" much more safely, so they do. Not seeing emotion doesn't mean it isn't there.

I think all animals should be treated with respect and kindness, including the ones we plan to eat.

 

What makes it inappropriate to look at breeding dogs, the same way we look at breeding pigs, horses, cows, rabbits, etc?

You cannot raise dogs under the same conditions as livestock. They must be socialized, and if some breeder screws up and produces/sells a bunch of unhealthy puppies with bad temperments and no socialization they can't just be turned out into a field later to await slaughter. Although, as I write this, I guess we do the equivalent by putting them in shelters to await euthanization. hmmm. So I guess part of the answer lies in the ultimate destination of the animal- although some dogs are bred to be working dogs, the majority of the puppies produced in this country are destined for the pet market. So, if they wind up not making good pets, they get dumped.

Dogs simply do not do well in confinement systems. It is very unhealthy for a dog to live in a tiny cage and not be given adequate exercise. In practice, MOST commercial dog breeders do not provide adequate nutrition- simply because, it is expensive to do so and if the aim is to make a profit, they want to make the most profit possible. Same goes for veterinary care- many dogs are not provided with the proper care because it is expensive. And again, there is the time factor. Imagine how much time must be spent with each puppy on an individual basis in order to ensure that it is properly socialized before going to it's new home? Some backyard breeders do a much better job than the "puppy millers", but if you take the time, spend the money on good food and good vet care, it becomes much more difficult to make enough $$$ to make the effort worthwhile. Seems like a catch-22 to me- on a small scale it isn't profitable enough, but when you try to scale up to where you think you can make good $$$ it becomes difficult/impossible to do it properly and still turn out a quality product.

Like the t-shirts we had made when doing high end production-

good
fast
cheap
pick any two...........

 

That's how I feel about it too. I like my dogs, but I will not mourn them like I would my child. I will not spend $2000 for surgery if they break their leg-- they'll be put out of their misery like any other animal I have. Over the years I've had many great dogs, but in my mind they are definitely more like livestock than a part of my family.

I'm not someone that lets dogs on the furniture-- they are animals not children. I do take them to the vet for shots and the older one has been neutered to calm his aggressive tendencies, but anything more than basic care is over the top IMO. Some people spend thousands per year on their dogs-- my friend has purchased insurance for his St. Bernard because she has expensive eye and liver problems. Me-- I'd get a different healthier dog.

My thoughts exactly. I have had many good dogs, but they are dogs. I treat them well & take care of them, but when they die, I don't mourn like it was a member of the family that passed. I have put many dogs down that would not get along with the other animals. I will not keep an animal killer for an outside dog. Their job is to protect the livestock, not eat it. We do have an indoor dog, a Dachsund. There are many days I've threatened to put him 6 feet under.