UKH

Now that we have returned to actual physically shopping, the phenomena of dogs being in shops has struck me again - why has this become a "thing" .

Guide dogs have always, rightly so, been accepted into shops but general people mooching around with dogs whilst shopping seem also to be the norm nowadays - why?

Are people unable to leave the dogs at home? If so, how they they cope when they have to go to work? Or go to the cinema? Or to go to a restaurant? Surely they must consider these things before becoming a dog owner? 

Why does the presence of dogs in shops bother you? I generally find them far less irritating than other shoppers.

I take my dog into shops sometimes. Generally it is because going into town is interesting for the dog, better than sitting at home (which would also be fine). I only do it if both my partner and I are present, so if the dog can't go in she can wait with my partner.

People take their children shopping with them, why not dogs? It's more socially acceptable to stay physically attached to your dog, and to tell them to stop making noise!

Because people have dogs and go places with their dogs. And if they want to go in a shop and the shop allows it, they go in the shop with their dog?

I leave my dog at home often but if I’m with him and want to go into a shop, which allows it, then I will. I wouldn’t take him home first.

Don't forget the people with bees....

in bonnets,

I like dogs, and I've never really registered dogs in shops enough to have an opinion, but things like allergies and phobias, or people being partially sighted and dogs being a potential hazard come to mind.

As a none partially sighted or dog owning person, I'd probably rather see them inside rather than left outside where they might be taken... 

Perhaps also because there's been quite a lot of media coverage of the problem of dogs being stolen during the pandemic, so maybe some people are more reluctant to leave their dog tied up outside a shop than they were not so long ago out of the fear (whether it's justified or not) that they'll come out and find someone has made off with the dog.

It seems to be garden centres that I see them mainly. And go outdoors, for some reason.

Personally Ive not taken my pooch into a shop. Either me or someone will stay outside whilst the other shops. My wife and I rarely visit the same shops so it works for us, plus the embarrassment of seeing him coil a massive length of dirty spine next to the hardy perennials would be hard to overcome.

I can't leave mine at home, someone dumping him on the street broke his brain long before I took him in. I knew this before I got him but didn't care because why not take him into shops?

Dog bans are a great filter for avoiding duff pubs and eating out with him in tow has never been much of an issue either, loads of nice places are happy to have him and our money.

Cinema/Theatre trips (what are they anyway after the last 18 months) mean a friend borrows the dog for the evening, win win.

jk

I take mine in sometimes just for a bit of variety for him. Different sniffs, people often want to say hello to him etc. 

He doesn't scream, shout, have tantrums and run around like children do in shops, so I have never felt like we are being problematic. 

I've known people to have allergies which are set off by dogs...

Me too. Happy to keep him away from them if asked but in nearly a decade of taking him pretty much everywhere it's never been mentioned by anyone as an issue.

Curling one out in the ferry terminal... that's a perennial problem. Eek, sorry!

jk

They jump up on you, cover your clothes in hair and/or mud, they bark, they get in your way 

and then the owner says……

”he/she is just being friendly”

Absolutely no place for dogs in shops/bars/restaurants.

Am I ok to take my pet cow into the shops????

Set off by being in the general vicinity of one? Really?

yeah - blame the dog....

Not my dog and I can honestly say that in all my 51 years on the planet I've never been jumped on or barked at by a dog in a shop. What the Hell are you doing to the poor mutts to provoke such a reaction? 

Sorry to intrude on your version of reality but loads of shops/bars/restaurants do indeed have a place for dogs. I know this because I often frequent them. With my dog.

Dunno? You'd first have to actually get a pet cow and then you'd have to approach the shop's proprietor and ask....seems a lot of effort to go to just to make a bollocks point on an obscure Internet forum though

When me and my Mum were shopping for a school uniform our Sam (a dog) sh@t on the carpet. It was one of those hard-wearing carpets a bit like squares of pan scrubber material. Before anyone noticed we dragged poor old squatting Sam outside. My mum and I still hoot about it nearly half a century later.

I've known a family friend to have had that problem, from sharing a building with a dog.

It's a general decline in etiquette combined with people treating their dogs like children. 

Yes.

I remember a lovely Labrador that was banned from the minibus after a kid had a fur allergy induced asthma attack - the poor dog want even in the vehicle that day.

I sometimes frown at people minding other people's children when out and about, in a 'But you were a child too, once'  kind of way.

If we smile and wave at children they might be cheerier to be around, I'm sure I remember liking that, when I was small.

Well I live and learn. Was the dog called peanut by any chance?

So how did they isolate the cause of the asthma attack to the dog?

Typical response from a dog owner. “Dogs are perfect, especially my dog. It must be you”

Blah, blah, blah…..heard it all before.

I notice you don't actually quote anything I've written or try and refute it. Pretty sure sign of a weak argument hitting the blank wall of reality.

Seriously? You've had this discussion before and someones suggested you get a pet cow? Blimey!

Inference is perfectly acceptable when discussing dogs.

No one suggested I get a pet cow. That would be ridiculous. I live on the 3rd floor.

You can keep your inference to yourself when discussing my little precious.

I suggested you get a pet cow just over an hour ago!
 

It was you that told us you had a pet cow in the first place!

😂

Lots of places specifically and actively market themselves as dog friendly so it’s no surprise. Go Outdoors, Cotswold etc actually sell dog products  too. Betws-y-Coed seems particularly dog-tastic this summer. 

These days as a dog owner you wouldn't dream of leaving a dog outside because someone will steal it.   

You also wouldn't leave a dog in a hot car, but it now seems to be a car in anything other than freezing conditions because of busy bodies that smashing your car windows and start a lynch mob on social media.

Therefore shops regularly miss out if they don't allow dogs as if you have one with you you can't go in. 

Yes dog can get left and often does.  I like to not make too many unnecessary journeys in my car tho so like to pick things up to or from dog walking if I can. This means for me shopping in the local newspaper shop if I need some milk instead of the little tesco.

If the dog is under control I don't see the issue

No Pebbles

I haven't a clue, I was only a kid at the time. Just remember going on a second trip, asking about the dog and being told she wasn't to allowed to come in the minibus anymore.

Edit:

Given how bad my own fur allergy is (fortunately not dogs) I can well believe it.

Don't blame the dog for jumping up and getting mud and hair on you. Blame the person who has no control over their dog. 

We have the happiest and daftest dogs ever but they won't jump on a stranger unless invited to. Of you pat you thighs and say comon then it's fair game to mob you. 

Oh, trust me I do. However unfortunately you can’t predict how their dog will behave until it’s too late.

Genuine question. How do you see a general decline in etiquette as having an impact on the presence of dogs on commercial premises?

Surely fair enough since most dogs have IQs equivalent to toddlers combined with an ability to give and receive love and affection?

It's become a thing because every f*cker has got themselves a dog nowadays and shop owners have bowed to the pressure. In the old days when dogs were less common shops could refuse to let them in and they'd lose very few customers.

God this forum has become a miserable, curmudgeonly place.

What next? Women and Children at crags? If dogs offend you so much shop somewhere else and that shop will lose your business. 

Yes, though if it's a bull, he's best left tied up outside the china shop and I also think it would be a little insensitive to take any cow into the butcher's.

Something that took me by surprise around San Francisco was just how many second hand book shops had a shop cat.

I've never seen a shop cat in the UK.

That’ll be down to all the dogs in shops

What, not even a second hand bookshop?

"THE CAPTAIN
The shop’s resident cat has been with us for about ten years. He is, without question, the biggest cat in Wigtown, and possibly Scotland. He hates dogs, so if you have one, be warned"

https://www.the-bookshop.com/about/
 

There are three shop cats in Kirkwall.

Shompy the Tesco cat, Jake the Shearers cat and Jasper who flits between several of the main street shops, sleeping in window displays etc and getting fed in each one judging by the shape of him.

Clearly I don't go shopping enough!  I've had to ban myself from second hand book shops as I ran out of space...

On a cold winters day ‘yes’, otherwise it would be Friesian. 
 

In fact, they actively encourage this in Tescows. 

Probably. But don't blame them; blame their menfolk who can't control them properly.

my dog loves it in go-outdoors, it’s interesting for him. My local has a nice beer garden and we’ll pop in for a pint and he’ll have half of guinness and pork scratchings but doing the big shop with him? It never even entered my head and bob wouldn’t like it, too many people.

Everyone and their dog has a ‘therapy dog’ these days and who’d ever challenge a Karen when she says her shittypoo is her therapy dog therefore allowed into River Island?

This thread definitely taken a turn for the better 😀

Yeah, it was starting to get a bit woof

I feel the same way about small children. You'd think people who go to shops or into restaurants would consider others before having them.  

...and fat blokes wearing vest tops,  shops are full of them in Devon at the moment.  Far more offensive than my well behaved dog.

He's quite choosy about which shops he goes in. If he's not interested in them he decides to wait outside,  otherwise he's happy to wander in. Odd thing his taste iin shops s similar to mine 

I like dogs but I am allergic to them.  If I pet a dog or go in a house where a dog lives it's like starting off a count down timer to sneezing/runny nose and if I stroke the dog swollen hands.  The longer I stay the worse it gets. 

People know when their allergies/asthma are triggered by dogs: it isn't rocket science when every time you go near one for any length of time you start sneezing.

You describe exactly my own observation of dog allergies, which is why I questioned it being an issue to be briefly in the general vicinity of one while shopping. 

I honestly think it's just a general increase in people treating their dogs like children. Which is ok for me as long as the dog is happy with it and they aren't bothering other shoppers. My dog gets quite worried in new places especially indoors, so we leave him at home. Stressed out, panting dogs shouldn't be in shops.

If the dog is on the lead you must be pretty close to it for it to be able to jump on you. I honestly don't think I have ever been jumped on by a dog in a pub/shop/crag without making a fuss of it first. (Apart from Bodying for SARDA but that doesn't count)

My dog isn't perfect. If you are making a fuss of him it is 50/50 on if he will try to  put 2 paws on you, but the good news is if we are shopping they will be clean and not muddy... If you leave him alone he will stay quite happily with 4 on the floor and ignore you back. 

The only dogs that should be allowed in pubs are those which can sit quietly under a table without making a sound for an hour ( or three pints, whichever comes first). 

Same with kids.

Presumably its 10x worse if its a English mastiff.

Probably not great if it's an English Sheep Dog either 

Women should only be allowed at crags if they are adequately  covered in stout hessian, lest their curves enflame our passions. Or something. 

As I said earlier…, typical dog owner response. “My dog is perfect, it’s not like other people’s dogs”…… repeat ad infinitum

If I walk in the woods, I run the risk of being jumped on. Regularly. I’ve been bitten twice that I can remember.

And no I don’t go out my way to annoy said dogs. Having been bitten twice why would I do that.

Get them on a lead, get them muzzled and leave them outside. If they get pinched, your loss.

Just change your question and you have the answer.

How do you see the presence of dogs in commercial premises as having an impact on a general decline in etiquette ?

Your attached photo answers your second point. For most people it's just a pic of a regular dog with an odd expression, for its owner it's probably the most handsome canine to have ever appeared on the planet. 

If you don't give your pet dog love an affection you probably shouldn't own one. But it's not a child.

Don't think the "kids" thing is the issue. Right now it's the genuine fear of the dog being pinched if left outside.

Would I ever take mine to a shopping mall or highstreet? Absolutely not. But if I've been out for a walk near Keswick, do I see any harm in him wandering around Alpkit or Cotswold with me? No, I don't, unless it's too hot and then we will both paddle in the Lake instead. 

...and Graham G whatever drives your viewpoint your comments are downright horrible.

I can only assume you're unfamiliar with how discussion works with regard to questions and answers.

No idea? That's what I asked you after you linked dogs with a decline in etiquette.

That wasn't my second point.

I am aware. Unlike your own household, mine contains both and I can honestly say I've never gotten confused, dropped the dog off at school then followed the kids round the park with a pocket full of bags waiting on them dropping a load.

Really? What have I said that’s horrible?

The bit about forcing people to be responsible for their dog?

The two times I've been bitten have both been in the last 15 years after a lifetime of not experiencing this, and BOTH in a mountain environment by free running dogs "who never do this".  I put this down to the explosion in dog numbers running free on mountains now plus owners being in denial.

Now that’s a sight worth imagining 😂

Got dirty looks in the Gorms recently when rather than saying “Good morning” I chastised two blokes for not having their dog on a lead. It’s not like you can easily miss the numerous signs informing people about ground nesting birds. 

Except he specifically said his dog wasn't perfect and explained why.

This one, however...

that is a really lovely shot

That’s what the buggers though isn’t it? They look all cute and fluffy, until your jeans are manky and you need a tetanus jab. 

The ambivalence towards people dogs being stolen....in fact a lovely bit of passive aggressive...good for you. Would like to think I would never feel like that about other people losing something dear to them....dog...bike....climbing kit whatever.  

Dogs being controlled,  no problem with that.

As it goes and for a bit of balance, I run regularly and as I have a dog often do so where there are plenty of dogs and I have never been bitten, never had one jump at me. Must just be lucky

Lovely 😁

It wouldn't be an issue for me to be near one briefly when shopping in a well ventilated shop with hard surfaces like a supermarket.   Probably I'd get sniffly in a small bookshop/cafe/pub with soft furnishings, less ventilation and dogs about regularly.   But I'm not anywhere near the top end of the scale of allergy/asthma symptoms.  

I’ve never been bitten by a bike so you’ll fully understand I feel differently about them. Although I have had more clothes made significantly dirtier.

We agree.

Maybe.

For balance, I don’t hate dogs. I quite like them. My neighbours is gorgeous. I even thought about giving into the kids about getting one. 

No, sorry don't understand that. Following that logic anyone ever had a fright with a bike getting close to them will be fine with people getting their bikes pinched.

You did. My apology.

I’m merely expanding the argument to dogs in general, and the attitude of dog owners who appear to believe they should be able to take them wherever they like. Without due consideration of the impact on others.

I’d be fine with people feeling that way.

OK, takes all sorts. 

This is the horrid beast you need to watch out for, will take an arm off in seconds

So I asked at the top what specifically was the issue with dogs in shops and one of the replies was they trigger allergies, to which I replied "Set off by being in the general vicinity of one?". Of the resultant replies we've had:

-one asthma attack set off by a dog habitually travelling in the confined space of a minibus (so not a shop)

-one bloke triggered by a dog living in the same building (we weren't discussing dogs living in shops or people living in shops frequented by dogs)

-Tom being set off if he visits a home pets the dog and settles down for a bit.

-Tom saying he might get a bit sniffy in tiny, stuffy, dog frequented premises (but just speculating rather than confirming this has happened).

Other reasons proffered for banning dogs from shops:

-They jump on you and get you muddy (in shops? unprovoked? really?).

-Blind people might trip over them (well they might, but they might also trip over them anywhere, along with any other physical object they might come across day to day).

-Phobias (sorry, I can train and restrain my dog but I can't do much about treating the neuroses of people I encounter while shopping).

I remain unconvinced that dogs in shops is a pressing concern.

Also yet to be addressed is the happiness and joy dogs frequently bring to complete strangers. Ask any dog owner how many times they're stopped in the street or approached in pubs by beaming strangers. There's little enough joy in the world as it is (certainly little enough displayed on this thread) and in my own dogs case I can confidently say I've witnessed her provoke an awful lot of happiness and bugger all distress.

Compared to Afghanistan? Probably not.

Biting, making muddy, crap in plastic bags hanging from trees, crap all over paths, not on a lead, incessant barking, running around you just being a general nuisance. And yes, they don’t all happen in shops.

That explains a lot.

Anyone been bitten in a shop?

In a shop?

In a shop?

In a shop?

In a shop?

In a shop?

In a shop?

In fact, they don't happen in shops at all. I see where you've gone wrong here, what you want to do is scroll all the way back up to the top to the bit that explains what the threads about and what I was specifically commenting on in the post you replied to. 

Here, I'll save you the bother.... "Dogs in shops - why?"

I do consider the impact on others, which is why my dog is socialised to ignore people that ignore him. We have also spent a considerable amount time (and money in some cases) getting him used to runners, bikes, wheel chairs, sheep, chickens, cars, other dogs and so on. 

We get that not all owners put in the time and effort, stray and out of control dogs are a massive concern for people with dogs too. Although now I am waiting for you to say "ALL DOGS SHOULD BE ON LEADS AT ALL TIMES!!" because you seem unwilling to rationalise about dogs

Does walking into a shop count?

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/16061492.police-release-cctv-woman-b...

Why not answer the question from the need to, positive position “dogs in shops - why?”

You may disagree with my stance, and rubbish my argument. But quite simply they don’t need to be there. We’re asked to leave all sorts of things outside shops. Why are dogs different?

And so you should. And yes I get that not all dog owners are the same, just like drivers, cyclists or anyone else you meet outdoors.

Nah. Keep them at home sounds like a better solution.

I had to click the link because it reads like the woman bit the dog! 

LOL. That would be taking a dislike of dogs a bit far…..

So you’ve trawled the internet and the best you’ve come up with is a woman bitten outside a shop three and a half years ago? 😂

Fine. Because they do no harm and the vast majority of people are either entirely indifferent or smile, come over and make a fuss of the lovable little fur balls.

The list of things that don’t need to be in shops is endless. Prams don’t need to be there, do you object to them? If something is doing me no harm in a retail environment I am entirely unconcerned by its presence. Dogs are in that category for all the reasons you have remained unable to refute.

You implied this never happens.

Can you prove “vast majority”?

I’m guessing you’re like me and are just bored today and need some company. Even if it just an online argument. “Loveable little fur balls” my a****

What about quite simply being scared of the smelly wee gits?

I find statements like this so baffling. Children are humans, they are people, they are us. They are the future of humanity. They usually can't be left alone, because of laws, ethics etc. None of us would exist without having them.

The beast that we have tamed to be obedient through thousands of years of control and inbreeding, and you take with you to feel some sort of power or companionship are none of these things, and they can definitely be left outside or at home.

I actually find it odd that 'owning' an animal is seen as acceptable in our society. It is only better for the animal because of the control and inbreeding we have done to get the poor animals to where they are now anyway.

In case you haven't guessed, no I don't like dogs, and no I don't keep any pets.

Prams don’t need to be there, do you object to them? 

Err, prams do need to be there, how else do mothers with children buy food??

This weird equivalency of dogs to children is, as my post above states, baffling.

Which rather renders you're opinion on the matter to the same level as that of a non climber who's afraid of heights spouting about climbers unnecessarily getting in his way while walking around Llyn Idwal.

1. *your

2. That really doesn't make any sense. 

Me: I hate the Tories

Stichtplate: Well, I'm afraid only Tory party members get to have an opinion on the Tory party

Mothers? Do you need introducing to the 21st century while we're at it? It's been gone into at length up thread why dogs can't be left outside currently. Google police or RSPCA advice on the matter if somehow the explosion in dog thefts has passed you by.

The equivalency is entirely obvious. Like children dogs are entirely dependent on their adults to teach, protect, feed and nurture them as well as see to their emotional well being. This isn't saying dogs are children, it's saying their families owe them a similar duty of care.

You are absolutely right on that one, thanks for pointing out my lazy generalisation.

My point is that we (as a group) do need to have children, not individually, but as a species if we don't then society will break down and die. Individually they are a choice, but as a society they are a necessity. 

Dogs on the other hand are not needed, and society shouldn't have to accommodate them to anywhere near the extent we do for children.

Just to reiterate, I implied people being bitten inside shops doesn't happen. You provided an example outside a shop (apparently the poor woman suffered a bruise). Such was the rarity of such an event that it ended up in a newspaper. Surely you find this reassuring?

Can you prove I'm mistaken? I'm speaking from personal experience while you're speaking purely from personal prejudice.

The fact that there's a 10,000 year history of symbiotic human/dog cohabitation and 33% of UK households contain a dog (despite considerable time, effort and expense) would indicate they are indeed lovable little fur balls.

Sorry to hear that but there's not a lot I can do about your neuroses apart from what I'm already attempting on this thread; addressing your numerous misconceptions.

Can I just check - 

Would you also complain if the dog next door was incessantly barking?

Would you also complain if a dog was tied up outside of a shop going mental?

Because I'm afraid those are essentially your three choices. 

To be clear, I absolutely adore dogs for the most part but I would never own one because they're a right pain. However, as a neutral (in that I don't actually 'own' one), the joy they bring me far outweighs the odd annoyance they bring. I'm not comfortable with the ownership of animals either as pets or as working beasts or as things we kill and eat, so I'd personally rather pets did not exist. 

So we’re getting shut of everything we don’t require to exist as a species? Unfortunately we would simply be existing in the sort of sad world you’re suggesting we should be creating.

Yeah, which is presumably why we, as a society, don’t accommodate them anywhere near the extent we do for children. You know publicly funded schools, playgrounds, paediatric hospitals, children’s courts etc, etc

Do you get out much?😂

The problem isn't your dog being in the shop. It's the 100s of dogs that go through every day/week/whatever. That is a lot of fur/dander/allergy triggers floating round in the air and being rubbed on clothes (if we're talking about outdoor shops here). One dog would probably not be an issue for 99% of people, ALL the dogs however.....

Sounds like a politicians answer. How is 33% in any way a high enough proportion to make that claim?

There is. Keep your dog away from me at all times, including shops. Sorted. Ta 😀

Ok, I'll expand the answer. You asked the wrong question because I don't see a general decline in etiquette as having an impact on the presence of dogs on commercial premises. I see dogs in commercial premisses as part of the decline in etiquette.  It's like wearing a hat indoors, the decline in etiquette has not lead to hats being worn indoors but wearing a hat indoors helps the decline in etiquette. Subtle but major point.

Your hilarious comments about kids and dogs is a bit off point. When I say treating dogs like kids I mean taking them shopping, allowing dogs to sit on tables, dogs sleeping in owners beds, buying meat flavoured ice cream for dogs, allowing them on the sofa, and so the list goes on. 

Just to be fair, I completely agree with you about badly behaved dogs and irresponsible owners, and my impression is that there is a definite increase in the number of badly socialised pandemic puppies around. 

It's easy to forget how intimidating the most harmless of dogs can look when you don't know them and aren't particularly doggy.  Nobody is likely to be scared of the little bundle of fun I posted the photo of, but when we had a pair of foxhounds we were very careful to try to ensure they didn't unexpectedly encounter a family group when they were off the lead.  We knew that they were completely soft, and children generally loved them, but their parents were understandably nervous that they might just run off with one of them.  

There has been a trend in the past decade or so of people getting dogs when they would normally have children. I think this is to fill the void being left by a lot of millennials not having kids like the boomers did. Loads of my friends have got married and coupled up but instead of having a kid they get a stupid cockapoo or something.

This is displayed in the choice of dog. You've gone from people having the traditional 'GOOD BOY' dogs like Collies, Retrievers, Labradors, Spaniels, etc. which need proper walks and to be treated like dogs, to a shift towards engineered teddy-bear dogs which are babied, dressed up, put all over social media, and a f*cking travesty. 

Quite right.  It's disturbing that this is the first time I can ever recall this crucial indicator of the decline in western civilisation being raised on UKC.

Thank you. TBH I think that’s all I need to hear. A recognition that whilst dog owners know their dog, others might see it as an annoyance or potential threat. Constantly hearing “he’s just being friendly” merely reinforces the mistrust as each owner has their own understanding of what that means.

The other very unhealthy thing I have noticed is inconsiderate people putting their dogs stinking bums on seats meant for customers (cafes etc).  This disgusts me after a lifetime's experience with stinking dogshit on my shoes.

In addition to indoor hat wearing, I've also noticed a decline in people tipping their cap to me, not changing into appropriate clothes for dining, and don't mention elbows on the table!

Such are the early signs of civilisational collapse.

Another classic UKC thread. Put dogs in the title and you're guaranteed a good fight. It helps that the sides are pretty even on here. Whatever the OP is about, you'll always get about 50-50 for likes and dislikes, just because it's about dogs.

Sharrowvale Road in Sheffield

The hardware shop (which is excellent) has a shop cat. Sits on the counter as you try and pay and studiously ignores everyone even though it is in the way.

Pet shop a few shops down has a resident cat (maybe not that surprising).

All part of the charm.

We've started dog-sitting the son's dog recently. Bouncy, friendly labradoodle. I used to find dogs a bit annoying (and still find badly behaved dogs very annoying) but I understand more now. It's been trained not to jump up (very rare for it to do so now) but it took some time. It's a lovely wee beastie and brings joy to our lives (and seems very welcome by most strangers, simply as it's cute, daft and hugely friendly).

I did get heckled when llama walking by someone who suggested they "weren't welcome over here". Mostly well behaved but there's no stopping an adult llama when it knows there's some tasty herbage around the corner.

I suppose my views have changed by being exposed to dogs more (but recognise that not everyone will share that view and it's my responsibility to keep it under control)

No problem with dogs in shops but going by my area in Glasgow (Basically loads of 1/2 bed tenement flats ) and the number of working breeds that seem to have owners with lifestyles not particularly compatible with their needs this paragraph did make me laugh a lot.

I think you're missing the point of etiquette. It's customary practice, not protocol preserved in aspic. Once upon a time, in certain circles, your reputation would be destroyed if you were to decline a duel over a matter of honour. These days your reputation would be destroyed if you seriously challenged someone to a duel over a matter of honour. By the by as dogs on commercial premises has always been a thing. I spent my first 16 years growing up above a pub, my parents then bought a newsagents. Both businesses welcomed dogs and it would've seemed weird if they didn't.

Why would it bother you if someone bought a treat for their dog? Of what concern of yours is it if someone allows their dog on a sofa? Do you wander around peering through people's windows tutting to yourself?  

It's not a matter of etiquette in any case, its a matter of hygiene. I don't let my dog come in the house if she's filthy, similar rules apply to the kids. Our dog is very clean, short haired and entirely welcome to sit on our leather sofa (purchased largely on the basis that its easy to keep clean). Can you point out the problem with this?

Out and about is a different matter, she's not allowed on other peoples furniture. As an aside I'd never put my feet or allow my kids to put their feet on public seating. Many others don't share my qualms.

Yeah. That’s just rank. Especially trains, where the seats are a comfy velour 🤮

I think this is the no.1 point that really could make a difference. Recognition and respect. All the posts up thread of cute dogs and "how could this fluffball hurt anyone", and that people who don't like dogs are wrong, or have no soul. These sum up the attitude of many dog owners and they really wind up people who don't like dogs.

I don't like dogs. I'm not phobic and I can deal with them, I'm prepared to live and let live. But I really wish that dog lovers would be willing to accept that. I've seen so many times the reaction of a dog owner who is utterly incapable of accepting that I just don't want to have anything to do with the love of their life. They clearly view it as a defect on my part.

This mentality is is demonstrated daily by the people who will say "he's friendly" as their dog bounds up to me. To make this clear, this is not an appropriate thing to do. The dog might be perfectly safe and friendly, and they might be a responsible owner who can control the dog, but I don't know that! There are plenty of morons out there whose dog is not safe and they can't control it, and in the interests of my safety I am always going to assume the worst until I see evidence that proves otherwise. The sign of a real responsible dog owner is when they call the dog and it comes to them. Once they show they have control I'm fine with them, as they clearly have a well trained and safe dog. They can then tell me he's friendly if they want, and I'll be pleasant to the owner. But I still won't want anything to do with the dog.

I'm not too bothered as long as the owners have it under control. There's been an increase in dog ownership and with it an increase in owners who don't have them under control, or don't understand that not everyone likes them.

I like them, but my girlfriend doesn't, to her they're just another nuisance animal. That should be respected but there's a minority of owners who don't.

Parks are worst for these idiots, but it occurs in shops too, dog sticking its nose in shopping while owner laughs and expects you to find it funny too, WTF?

Hang on….how do you clean the kids if they’re not allowed in if they’re filthy? Hose them down in the garden?

Have you never been hosed down in the garden?

Dad hosed us down in the garden many many times as kids!

Admittedly it was a dairy farm and we were covered in actual sh*t.

The normal way. I make them take their boots off. Far messier and more time consuming attempting to remove the feet from dogs😂

They have also been hosed down in the garden on occasion.

I did intend that to be somewhat tongue in cheek, but I stand by it. I dislike children and my shopping experience would be much more pleasant with fewer of them around. It is socially acceptable for children to be out of control, something that becomes readily apparent if you own a dog.

I agree that this entire discussion is a red herring because dogs and children are not equivalent. On the other hand, what's with all the children in pubs these days?

If as a society we accept the keeping of pets (and we do) then those pets entering a subset of shops is hardly a radical step.

People keep bees as well.  And snakes.

If a dog behaves like that, it has no place in the shop. Would you say the same for a well behaved dog? As for your cow, if it was well behaved and there was space, why not? 😉

I have been jumped up at by a dog in a shop. I have been bitten by a dog in a shop. I have had to clean up after a dog had a crap in a shop! Jumping up and crapping on more than one occasion. The joys of working in a supermarket on the evening shift! 

Being bitten, muddied, barked at, being told 'it is just being friendly', seeing a dog chase (around) sheep, seeing dogs off leads in areas where there are signs of ground nesting birds, seeing dogs in areas where the owners are asked not to take them, are all regular, (except the biting, total blood drawing bites is 3, one in a shop, two out in open country!) As for the amount of little bags of shit left laying around or hung in trees and bushes, or even just dog shit left on paths and pavements, that is just nasty! I do not blame the dogs, it is all down to the owners, who believe they have the right to allow their little treasure to do what it wants where it wants.

Apart from all that, dogs are not the most hygienic animals, I do not want my hand licked by a dog that has just licked it's arse, rolled in other dog shit, had its nose up another dogs arse. Dogs should be banned from all areas that sell food, whether a supermarket, restaurant, outside market or pub!

What the hell are you doing to all these dogs to get such a reaction?! I am also interested to know which supermarket you work in that allows dogs in, because frankly it sounds like Graeme G pets poo.

Yep, never come across a supermarket that allows dogs in (apart from seeing eye dogs, which all seem highly trained and totally placid).

Also, bitten three times by dogs drawing blood? I'm an inveterate dog botherer, I'll almost always say hello to one and I've never been bitten by a strange dog. Never, blood or not. In fact the only times I have been bitten is pretend bites while playing with the family dogs.

As we're well into the realms of personal anecdote here; since 2017 I've attended just one dog bite and I've not heard of any of my colleagues attending someone bitten by a strange dog. By comparison, I've lost count of the number of cyclists I've attended. To add a little more perspective a quick Google reveals that there are 7.5 million cyclists in the UK and 9 million dogs.

Maybe you smell interesting?

Superb rant. As the owner of a choccy lab who gets at least 3.5 miles per day I wholeheartedly concur. Whilst I dont entirely agree with your example, because a cockapoo is a Tasmanian devil of an amalgam of two working dogs and therefore should get as much exercise as mine, pugs, French bulldogs and miniature sausage dogs should all be banned. And dont get me started on chihuahua's, the snappy little shits!

Hadn’t thought of that. Maybe I need to resign the Beef scented shower gel to the bin?

It's now thought to be more beneficial to improve the food sources for wild bees and other pollenating insects, than to keep honey bees, because of their capacity for competition with the native/wild populations. I dare say improving the availability of beneficial plants and flowers would be a positive thing in a number of ways, too, 

I've cycled all my life and haven't bitten anybody. I don't think it's a national problem, maybe just a thing were you work.

Not even in a shop?

It wasn't, but I was intrigued to learn about a cat called Hannibal, which nearly cost a friend his thumb and hand after biting him. He's since discovered that Hannibal isn't at all afraid of him, and returned his experiments in running and shouting with an unblinking hard stare.

The combination of the 3 almost couldn't be better.

Even the Bodleian Libraries only draw the line at you bringing your sheep in with you

In a compassionate to my friend way...

No. I was once tempted to have little nibble..... but you get collared for that type of thing. 

That's exactly what I told the judge, unfortunately he didn't believe me. 

But seriously. Dog bums (as earlier mentioned) on seats?

Little bone shaped treats I get, but Dog ice cream at £3 a pop? 

On the clean dog issue how would you feel if some of your human friends spent the day sitting on your couch? Farting and licking their nether regions (if they were bendy enough). I bet you wouldn't lie down for a snooze on said couch.

Our dogs bum is a damn sight cleaner than an awful lot of human backsides I've been exposed to.

If that's what people want to spend their cash on, so what? Is it any dafter than spending £700 on an anorak?

Do you get up from you're couch to fart? You expect other members of your family to do so? How about oral? Does the thought horrify you? 

I think you're lacking a little perspective here. You think dogs are filthy creatures? I've met plenty of humans orders of magnitude dirtier than the dirtiest of dogs.

I often take mine into the pet shop as some owners will toss him a treat, and besides there's lots of interesting scents that's up his street!

I'm sat on just such a sofa next to just such a farting dog beast. He wishes he was flexible enough to nibble his knob let alone his arse hole. Good job his tail covers it as well as my threadbare pants cover mine.

Jk

Proctologist? Swinger? Dogging? I mean WTF!

On a more serious note if you think a dogs backside on a train seat is acceptable then you can’t possibly have any claim to have won the argument. They haven’t even paid!!

You really wouldn’t want to know the half of it.

Nope, I’ve already stated up thread that she’s not allowed on other peoples furniture and I don’t own any trains.

In such a scenario, I would probably be joining in... 

One of my local pubs say its okay for dogs on the seats (apart from the beers, and building a ladies toilet not much has changed in this pub for over 100 years), but Bran stays on the floor, we even take him a mat so lay on and chill out.

Our dog is spoilt at times, allowed on the sofa in the house, dog ice cream that helps cool him down on a hot day (a mix of homemade and shop bought) and he gets a homemade birthday cake too (not that he has any concept of a birthday, but it keeps my other half happy). We all know that some people "baby" their dogs, and some people have no control of their dogs, and that is unpleasant for everyone. Not the vast majority, but maybe the problematic dogs stay in mind longer than the ones that have gone totally under the radar. 

Mine thinks the pet shop is the best walk ever! He likes to clean up all the dropped biscuits under the pick'n'mix shelves. He wriggles under on his side, swiping them out with his paws if his tongue doesn't reach! 

Not been for a while, maybe that should be tomorrow's walk 🙂

If I ran a shop, I would let dogs in except French Bulldogs, pugs, etc.

And 10% discount for those with sighthounds.

(runs for cover)

Wingeing,out of control,strident children in shops cause me more grief than a docile dog on a lead,why can't they leave them at home with a partner/ minder and give us all some peace.

Agree.  Dog "ownership" should involve a very outdoors life for dog and owner, not going to poodle parlours or being shut in all day. The effort involved in training a puppy properly should not be underestimated nor the amount of dirt they bring in the house. Wouldn't change him for the world tho

Never seen a dog in a shop. Probably because I hardly go to shops other than supermarkets. However I find the idea bewildering. Shops are indoor spaces for humans.

On a more controversial note, I think the whole idea of pet ownership is incompatible with our climate change targets. It’s just a huge waste of resources. I get that some people are genuinely lonely and a pet helps with that and that’s fair enough. However a lot of pets these days seem to be more like accessories. The world needs far fewer dogs and cats as pets.

Because it’s a dog. Do you not see the difference between a child and a dog? One is human. The other is not. This is the issue with some dog owners - they don’t seem to see the distinction.

Agree about dogs as accessories. There aren't many but there are still too many people who appear to have bought a dog because a celebrity has one, they've seen one on TV or a film.

Dogs and other pets do represent a waste of resources, just like walking, climbing, kayaking, and many, many other things.

Dave

Climbers can't really play the climate card here. Climbers regularly drive for more hours for a day/weekend out than lots of folk would do for a holiday. Then add in all the unnecessary plastics etc. Very poor argument. 

The difference is that even the scruffiest people you are likely to come across will probably be wearing a couple of layers of fabric which prevent their filthy ring pieces from coming into contact with the seats. Only the most pampered of dogs wear pants and for all that I see plenty of people picking up after their dog, I've never actually seen anyone getting out the Andrex and wiping its arse.

151 replies so far and the OP yet to revisit the thread. 10/10

I have already said that I think the comparison between children and dogs is a red herring - I can justify taking my dog into a shop without comparison to children. However, in the interest of avoiding doing my work, I will challenge your position.

Why? What is your basis for making this claim? A small child being dragged around a supermarket (or me being dragged around a clothes shop) is no more likely to make a purchase than a dog.

Perhaps you would argue that there is a societal consensus that shops are spaces for humans? But clearly this is not true, given that I have been actively encouraged to bring my dog into several shops by the owners, and warmly greeted by other shoppers. There might have been such a consensus in the past, but these things change. Not so long ago children (even women in some places) were not welcome in pubs, now that idea seems daft.

I like dogs, they're great but I do take exception to owners who expect everyone else to like them just as much as they do. 

Well behaved dogs are fine but if I'm in a cafe or pub and one starts barking then it's not acceptable to just sit and joke how "they're just excited", clearly they are but it's ruining the enjoyment of others. I could apply similar comments to small kids, a few minutes outside to cool off works wonders.

Recently I was taking my nephew out on a pram walk, he's been taught to treat dogs with respect as they're not all friendly, so he sat quietly as a medium sized dog came bounding over. Once near the pram the dog barked aggressively, scaring my nephew into tears, I turned away but the dog continued to bark at which point I kicked the dog in ribs to scare it off. Needless to say the owner, struggling to catch up with her dog, went mental at me. Some choice words were exchanged and we went our separate ways. Ultimately I rank children over dogs, and yes - the owners are to blame for their behaviour but the dog still has to be controlled.

Are you familiar with typical canine physiology? They typically have their ringpiece tucked up out of the way under their tail. It takes a deliberate effort to get their arse directly in anything, 

As to “the scruffiest people” I’m likely to come across, you have no idea. No Idea😂

'Wiping it's arse'.

I have. But that was in Biarritz.

Right. Good point. Will this thread reach 2000 posts, and one month?

Summary of comments so far:

DOG OWNERS/ LIKERS: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

DOG DISLIKERS: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Because if it was set up purely for dogs…..well I’m sure you can complete that sentence.

You're right. I have a shop friendly bull, but I know there are good bulls and bad bulls, but there’s always someone wanting to Tarus with the same brush. 

(that’s clearly bullshit).  

And yet the world needs more joy 

I've seen plenty of dogs scratching/ rubbing their arses on a carpet. Perhaps they know to behave differently with a pub seat but I wouldn't bet on it.

In what capacity would you attend a dog bite?

Are you part of the emergency services? I'm sure a great many dog bites are not reported, even if they draw blood.

I have seen YouTube videos of cyclists in shops. They weren't very popular. I guess they can't leave their bikes outside in case they get stollen.

It’s not the bulls that are the problem. It’s the bull owners.

Aye. And since Covid I’ve noticed a lot more people with pet bulls, especially those cockerbulldles that go untrained and overpetted. 

I blame the unscrupulous bull farmers. They need their bullocks removed.

You have hit the nail on the head here. Once people start talking about their dog as a member of the family (they're not even the same species FFS), you know they have lost the plot. I've nothing against many dogs and actually like some, but a sane perspective is needed.

I'm not suggesting that shops are purely for dogs. I'm asking you to justify the claim that shops are purely for humans.

If a shop was set up for both humans and dogs it might have: some treats behind the counter, maybe a water bowl, no open food items at floor height, a sign saying dogs are welcome. All things that you do in fact encounter in shops!

He works in a hospital.

Apparently the bases of bags can be rather uncleanly, and the rear of trousers and shorts and skirts can be too. I guess it's plausible that the range of nasties is broader on clothing and bags than it is from dog's bums, but I wouldn't know which would have the worst. 

(None dog owner, just a ponderer of what's out there...)

That’s a bit like saying shops are for handbags. They have all the things a hand bag might need; space to move around in, places where they can put eg the floor.

Dogs are only there by stint of humans. Same as handbags.

I kind of guessed that.

Could make for an interesting study. Bit like the peanuts on a bar. 🤮

Each to their own, but I'd rather eat my dinner off the seat of a random pair of trousers then a dog's arse.

Yes it could. 

You should try using a plate or a bowl, much better at containing the food

Humour acknowledged, but I reckon I would too (having just found out about worms in dog poo).  My Dad caught e-coli, possibly when he was in Nepal, and he was alright except for frequent toilet visits. Compared to catching worms from dog's bums...

I have seen shop cats…

,,, in secondhand bookshops.  A really fierce one in West Linton comes to mind. Would have scared my cow.

 Actually one of my FB friends posted an old Victorian advert about the benefits of ingesting tapeworms for weight loss. I assumed it was a fake but it might not be: there are clinics in Mexico offering tapeworm implants for the same reason . It was reputed that Maria Callas resorted to drastic measures like this to lose weight but it seems that her tapeworm infection was not a diet fad , rather a consequence of her love of raw meat and offal.

We were sitting in  a restaurant when this (German) couple entered with a dog in a baby stroller. It seemed to have it's full complement of legs.The dog was far better behaved than its raucous owners 

Dachshund with back problems?

It’s not an argument, it’s just my view. 

You’ve just demonstrated my point that some dog owners don’t seem to appreciate the difference between a dog and a human. The comparison with children or women not being allowed into pubs is ridiculous. Children and women are humans and therefore have equal rights with other humans. Dogs are not and therefore do not.

Also just because some other shoppers welcome dogs doesn’t mean everyone else does. If I start playing loud music at a crag or on a train, some people might like it. Doesn’t mean it’s ok to do it.

I just think that communal indoor confined spaces are fundamentally inappropriate for any pets (well a stick insect in a jar may be ok). Your dog might be well trained but fundamentally it’s an animal which can be impulsive and do random things and can’t be reasoned with (also true of some humans but they generally reside in prison). Witness the “it’s never done that before” cases. Well, it’s hasn’t until now. Then you’ve got all the badly trained / controlled dogs, overly friendly dogs (same thing really), dirty / smelly / noisy dogs and so on. It’s bad enough outdoors sometimes but at least you can generally avoid close canine encounters if you want or need to. Indoors you’re in much closer proximity and an out of control or badly behaved dog would be a bigger issue than outdoors.

Cats are even worse. They kill wildlife just for fun. How is it animal friendly to have a cat when you know it will kill birds and so on? Unless it never goes outdoors. I don’t really understand the point of cats, unless you have a mice or rat problem. At least with dogs you get companionship and your best friend. Cats just need you to feed them and don’t give a toss about anything else. As someone once said to me, if you want an animal which lives apart from you, sponsor a tiger.

It depends on the climber (their general lifestyle, proximity to where they climb, how much of their climbing gear is bought new, how much of their outdoor gear is bought new). In any case, it is technically true that keeping a dog increases one's environmental footprint. 

That's not true actually, cats can bond rather strongly with their owners, and there's certain things they only do with humans they love, like affectionately butting their heads against the person. 

I'd never have a cat, but I seem to be a softy for other people's, and it's interesting once you find out about them, how much they 'can be' different to the stereotype.

Popped into Go Outdoors yesterday. There was a guy with a dog asking for help. Apparently the dog had shat on the floor, he'd got no bags, and he'd lost his family (in the store I presume).

‘Lost’ his family? They probably ran off! 

Could carry a box of spiders around and let them walk around on people who bring dogs into shops.  I think I'd like to bring some poisonous snakes into a shop.  I'd put them on a very long extending dog leash though, to keep them "under control".

I've also a several tens of thousands of pet midgies.  They are part of the family and I demand the right to take them into shops and cafes.  As well as my pet anthrax spores and support animal parasitic worms.

some people just don't "get" cats.  you can't be possessive with a cat - it comes to you on its own terms

I grew up with cats and dogs and the distinction between which does and does not give affection is only made by people who don't understand.

Midges are one of the most affectionate of pets. They just love people!

Mine was a good if not firm employer

To be fair, it's a pretty smart and well-trained dog that knows to ask for help in such a situation.

Yeah, don't jump the gun.

Philip only said "Apparently the dog had shat on the floor". Pretty common for owners to blame the poor dog for a particularly rank fart, perhaps the Go Outdoors guy had just taken things to another level?

My dog comes most places with me. He comes to work with me and loads of places in town are dog friendly now so going out for a drink or meal isn't an issue either. He's part of the family so why wouldn't he come with us?

He's come over to France with me a few times and pretty much everywhere there is dog friendly. I was stood outside the butchers and cake shop in Chamonix assuming he couldn't go in and other people with dogs just walked straight in!

He's never curled one out in a shop, but I did take him into Epicentre in Ambleside a few weeks back and when he spotted the fake trees downstairs he couldn't resist cocking his leg!

It's sometimes set me wondering if that's why some of my female friends/facebook acquaintances can identify strongly with how cats run things on their own terms, when one considers some of their other posts about being given unwanted attention from men, a minority of men, but it's lodged as a thought.

That's my impression too. Fave sis in law's cat used to be very affectionate, I did strengthen the bond by lying down so she could sit on my chest and get to know me, when I first started to cat sit for them a lot, but we'd commune nose to nose, and she'd come up and nuzzle and head butt in an affectionate way on other occasions. 

Have you checked this with a DNA test?

My wife is definitely part of my family. I believe DNA evidence isn’t required to prove this. Even if you live in East Anglia.

What species is she?

Human of the genus Cambrica Harridanus. Irrelevant to the debate though as strangers on the internet get no say in who's part of my family.

I think you must mean sub-species; all humans are of the genus homo.

You’ve not met my wife either Robert. She’s, err, unique.

In all seriousness though, I know where you’re going with this and you’re wrong.  
A family is bonded through emotional and physiological interdependence, formed through the simple fact that we love and rely on each other, that our World’s are a better place through their inclusion. I can post links to studies backing this if you like or you could just look at a photo?

That's true, but to be fair if you are going to converse with strangers on the internet then the accepted etiquette is to not make up your own definition of words, but to stick with the generally accepted one. And as far as I'm aware the definition of family does not include pets.

Absolutely. A quick google shows that the accepted definition is of groups of people (humans) related by birth, marriage (or similar) or adoption. I suppose one could argue how many generations one can go back to a common ancestor to make two people members of the same family, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that one could go back as far as the the most recent common ancestor of humans and dogs.

Millions of pet owning families disagree, word meanings evolve and the reality of family is that it’s an emotional construct, not a dictionary definition.

I'd dispute that there are millions who do this. I know loads of pet owners. None of them seriously refer to their pet as family.

Ok, let's see some serious evidence of a consensus on this (rather than emotive assertion by dog owners), because your photo of a dog and a child proves nothing.

I think a surprising number do so but not seriously. It is a bit like close male companions with interdependence referring to each others as "brothers"; the vast majority know that they are not really.

Ok, give me an hour or so and I’ll link you a study (currently walking the dog) moot point anyway as i and all my family members agree, the dog’s part of our family and it’s our family so we make the rules😁

When you're doing that, just remember the rules:
Lots of people who agree with each other and with Robert Durran = "serious consensus"
Lots of people who agree with each other but not with Robert Durran = "emotive assertion"

No, a serious consensus would be broad and agreed on by a majority of people whether I like it or not.

No, in this case the emotive assertion is by a subset of the special interest group of dog owners.

It has nothing to do with what I think (I might even be wrong); it is about the accepted consensus on the definition.

He’s onto a loser there then as family is entirely predicated on emotional assertion. 

Within my family (and pets too if you like) we have out own word usages too. There's nothing unusual there. But I wouldn't expect strangers on the internet to understand what I was on about if I started using them in public.

Entirely? Seriously? 

Many words are used loosely or metaphorically but they still need to be anchored in a harder meaning. Otherwise they become, well, meaningless.

I think the vast majority of people who refer to their dog as "family" know perfectly well that it is not really family in the true sense like their children and so on.

I’m estranged from my sister, not seen or spoken to her in about 15 years. She is no longer part of my family.

You can define your own family however you like, I have no opinion on the matter. Is it a big deal for you to return the courtesy?

Would you complain about a bee in a shop?

About those studies, here's a couple:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232524029_The_human-canine_bond_Cl...

https://revisesociology.com/2020/06/19/pets-as-part-of-the-family/

and here's a summing up which recognises that families are often messy with shifting ties. but that's true of all families, regardless of whether they contain pets or not:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/all-dogs-go-heaven/201510/are-pets-...

Still only 96% of pet owners considering their pets as part of the family, hardly conclusive is it?

It has nothing to do with courtesy. I don't think either of us should just define family (or any other word) how we like - that would lead to chaos. I am simply interested in the accepted meaning of the word.

Well no, not chaos, normal messy human interactions and evolving word definitions. Just has been the case since forever.

​​​​​​Just because the bond between a person and their dog is closer than to a family member doesn't mean the dog is a family member (perfectly obviously).

The survey was a completely unscientific online marketing survey of pet owners. So obviously not an unbiased sample then! Anyway, you have picked this "soundbite" from the article completely out of context. The writer's conclusions are actually quite nuanced about the psychology of pet owners and there is certainly no conclusion that "pets are family".

I think a quick look at the appropriate census return should resolve the matter.

Bollocks. Families are entirely predicated on emotional bonds and you’ve got a couple of good quality studies there reinforcing that fact.

yep, not the most scientific study but good enough to refute the assertion that people don’t really regard pets as family. And yeah, biased pet owners! What do they know about owning pets?😂

Err, what soundbite? I said I’d provide studies and there they are. Now you say that’s not good enough and you want something with a conclusion stating “pets are family” 😂

Many owners look like their pets. I still think the DNA test idea is relevant.

 Have you actually read the articles? They discuss the assertion that "pets are family".

Some self-selecting subset of pet owners saying they regard pets as family in a marketing survey (for all I know aimed at getting people to spend as much in their pets as their actual family members) does not in any way show that pets are family members.

The soundbite "pets are family". As discussed in the article.

No, that is what you want and you have failed to provide it.

No they do not.

Go on then. What’s your definition of family? And “got to be human”  doesn’t cut it.

Ok, my studies aren’t good enough so provide your own showing a majority of dog owners don’t regard them as family and concluding with the words “pets aren’t family”

DeepSoup had you pegged didn’t he Robert 😂

Was the pegging done in an area and fashion that Robert found ethically acceptable? 

I can't speak for Robert, but when I'm asked to define a word I usually reach for a dictionary. So I just did that, and guess what? The definition for family doesn't mention anything about including pets. I'm pretty sure you'll find that in any legal or official context the same applies.

You are free to go ahead and use the word however you please, but you really can't expect everyone else to join in.

It’s not just me though, it’s loads of people with pets (as per the admittedly crap survey). My wife’s parents and my own parents regarded the dogs as family. My self and my father have both risked our own lives going to the aid of family pets. The only time I’ve seen my Father choke up was when he was telling me he’d had to have the dog put down.

As to legal and official context, I’m legally, officially and morally responsible for my dog.

There’s been a few on here acknowledging that people do indeed refer to family pets as family “but they don’t really mean it”. Perhaps they should drop the condescension and take those statements at face value.

Well if someone invited me to bring my family to an event, I would ask first if it was OK to bring the dog. What I absolutely would not do is just show up with the dog and say "but you said to bring the family". And if I invited someone to bring their family to mine and they showed up with a dog (having not mentioned it) then I would be pretty pissed off.

So in my understanding of the use of the word family it does not include pets, and in my experience this is how pretty much everyone else uses it. 

You might be legally responsible for your dog, but it's not legally family. Not in terms of census, tax, or any other official business. Legally it's a pet, which is very different in terms of status.

It strikes me as one of those polarised internet debates where the fact that 'both are true' is appearing to be overlooked.

It's obvious that dogs and cats aren't humans, but humans and dogs (and cats) can form very strong bonds with one another too, so that the dogs and cats will watch intently/not move away from footage of their humans after they have passed away, and humans will risk their wellbeing to save them from house fires and what have you.

People could keep going around in circles, because both aspects are true, and each one can be without meaning the other isn't...

You must be a different Robert Durran to the one who invariably pops up on the 'crag swag' threads arguing that the dictionary definition of theft, the taking of another person's property with the intention of permanently depriving them of it, doesn't apply to climbers who find gear in-situ and decide they want to keep it even if the original owner asks for it back.

That Robert Durran definitely believes the "emotive assertion by a subset of the special interest group" of climbers who want to keep their crag swag outweighs the more generally accepted dictionary definition of a word in the English language.

It's like the line from the Oscar Wilde play A Perfect Husband, 'We all know that morality is something we apply to those we don't like'. 

We generally seem to frame arguments to suit what we want to be true/how we already feel...

Poor argument. If someone said “bring the family” I wouldn’t automatically assume I could bring a random uncle, cousin or in law. Are you denying my in laws are family?

I wouldn’t automatically bring the dog, not because she isn’t family but because I’m not a total nob and I’m aware firstly that “bring the family” doesn’t actually mean “your entire family are welcome”, and secondly I’m aware some people aren’t comfortable around dogs. Simple.

No, you are claiming that the meaning of the word family has changed from the accepted meaning to include dogs, so obviously the onus is on you to demonstrate this to be the case.

No. See my reply explaining why they were talking bollocks.

I'm sure many know that their dogs are not really family. Those that seriously insist they are family are wrong.

Your argument seems to be: "I say my dog is family. Therefore it is". It's laughably nonsense as argument.

FTFY.  (*including the pronoun)

On the contrary, you've just proved my point. You understand perfectly that what I mean when I say "bring the family" is immediate family, without pets. It's the same in pretty much any context I can think of. If someone says "family", it's generally assumed that this doesn't include pets.

I would bring the dogs, that said anyone who I like enough to spend time with knows full well where we go the dogs go. 

For the record my dogs are definitely family. I'm not sad enough to refer to them as fur babies but Spud is my best pal and I would rather spend time with him than most humans. 

It strikes me as one of those polarised internet debates where the fact that 'both are true' is appearing to be overlooked.

It's obvious that dogs and cats aren't humans, but humans and dogs (and cats) can form very strong bonds with one another too, so that the dogs and cats will watch intently/not move away from footage of their humans after they have passed away, and humans will risk their wellbeing to save them from house fires and what have you.

People could keep going around in circles forever with examples to prove either one, because both aspects are true (that animals are not humans, and that bonds can form so they feel like family), each one can be true without meaning the other isn't.

On the contrary. A general invite from a friend would cause us pause as to inclusivity but people that know us really well would just assume we'd bring the dog if they'd asked us to bring the family.

You asked for evidence so I provided some... you said the evidence wasn't good enough.

I asked you to provide counter evidence...you said you didn't have to.

I explained why I saw my dog as family, citing emotional attachment, the dogs ability to give and receive affection, demonstrate empathy, the fact it lives with us as part of the core family unit and it's dependence on us for shelter, food, protection and love.

It's you who's entire argument boils down to "Not Human = Not Family".

Which is why you refused to provide any definition of family devoid that proviso, because if you did it would become immediately obvious that you have no argument at all, laughable nonsense or not.

This argument for pets not being family is equally valid for the family outside the 'immediate' family not being family.  As semantic arguments go, I think you might have reductio'ed your own absurdum a bit there.

You really don't understand how discussions about a contested point work do you? People state opposing opinions and them debate about it.

As a matter of courtesy I try to use gender neutral pronouns on here unless I know what gender someone is or identifies as. I'll try to remember that you prefer male pronouns in future.

In the context of the thread, shouldn't that be chasing their tails?

Perhaps you should take note as your entire argument so far has boiled down to "You wrong cos dictionary" and you've simply refused to go beyond that.

No, because it is you who is claiming a change in the dictionary/commonly understood meaning of the word.

Even if you treat your dog and feel about your dog the way you treat and feel about your close family members, that does not mean it is actually family.

I suspect that when most people say that their dog is family, they are just using it as shorthand for treating it and feeling about it in some ways as family while understanding that it isn't.

Yes (though I would use "therefore", not "equals"). And I believe I am solid ground.

Why don't you just look up the established definition like I and others have done?

Yeah, like I said, your entire argument boils down to "You wrong cos dictionary". And yet you are so devoid of self awareness as to lecture someone else on what discussion involves not 10 minutes ago...

"You really don't understand how discussions about a contested point work do you? People state opposing opinions and them debate about it."

LOL

Met this guy wandering around Yosemite. Affection seemed to be entirely mutual. Cat climbed a lot harder though.

There's more than one way to define family.  It's like sex and gender, the social scientists self defined thing is valid/valuable in some contexts and a definition based on biology is valuable in others.

Citing sociology doesn't prove anything to people who prefer a biology based definition.  We just need to accept there's more than one way of looking at it and make it clear which viewpoint we are taking.

Even within the social science framework of self-identification it would be valid to ask do the people who say the animal is part of their family actually act like it is when there is a substantial cost to doing so.   Most parents would stick with their child even if it seriously assaulted them or sell their house to pay a child's medical bills.  They probably wouldn't keep a dog that was dangerous or sell their house to pay vet bills.

If swag is legally and technically theft then that is fine - I'm not arguing with it. The swag ethic is a consensus among climbers that, in very particular circumstances, they will overlook that it is theft in order to have an elegant, mutually beneficial system of abandoned gear retrieval internal to climbing.

Of course if that consensus breaks down ( and it may well be doing so) then it fails to work and, in my opinion sadly, we have to revert to treating swag like other theft.

Similarly, dog owners are free to treat and call their dogs family if there is an understanding between them what they actually mean by that, but that does not mean they really are family.

I suspect this debate is going nowhere. You state something is true simply because you say it is. I say it isn't because it doesn't fit with established consensus. There really is nothing more to say unless you can show that that consensus doesn't exist or never did exist.

I think a good thought experiment would be for people to consider the two scenarios:

A) You have to kill one of two children.

B) You have to kill either your dog or a child.

Ah.  I think it must definitely be some other Robert Durran I'm thinking of then.  He seemed to be very much arguing with it.

You don't seem to understand how a dictionary works in the English language.  Which is ironic considering that your argument boils down to "Dictionary, so ner!"

There is no English equivalent of the Académie Française, in English the dictionaries don't prescribe how words should be used, they record and reflect how they are used.  If a significant number* of English speakers use a word mutually intelligibly to mean 'X', then for that particular subculture at least the word does mean 'X'.  If the OED doesn't reflect that then it will, when it catches up.

Edit to add:
Oooh, like say maybe about 20% of the adults in the UK?  90% of dog owners probably isn't far off that.

No. I've provided evidence and reasoned debate. You've repeatedly said "cos dictionary" and refused to expand on that.

I agree there's no point in continuing this as you're obviously unable to debate the point.

That's because they know you, and know what you mean. They understand that your use of the word "family" includes your dog. That's your own personal use of the word, and it's fine in that context because you all know what it means. But when dealing with people who don't know you, if they said "family" you would expect them to mean just the humans, because that is the generally accepted use of the word.

You do understand how loaded that scenario is don't you? Killing a child would result in completely destroying your life, serious jail time and complete social ostracism.

Is that the best you can come up with?

As I keep saying (with linked evidence) and you keep ignoring, its not just my personal use of the word. On this thread alone three other posters have confirmed their dogs are part of their families. Why are you so unable to accept this fact?

Robert claimed that it's necessary to defend the language from the "chaos" that apparently ensues if you use a word other than precisely defined in the (current edition of the) dictionary.  But in the post you made where you used the word to include the dog, you made it abundantly clear what you meant. 

The debate kicked off when Hooo complained that your use of the word was ambiguous despite never being in any doubt whatsoever precisely what you meant by it. 

Not only is there no point continuing this pedantic semantic argument, it was also completely unnecessary from the start.  No wonder the nice people who don't enjoy this kind of endless bickering don't bother with UKC any more.

I could cut and paste a variety of definitions, but I am sure you are capable of a quick Google yourself.

We accept that they use the word. We simply think they are wrong except perhaps in some non-literal sense of meaning they treat their dog as if it were a member of the family.

It's a philosophical thought experiment called 'The Trolley Problem'.
(As you probably know, soz if I'm being patronising here.)

If Robert thinks introducing it into the discussion is going to clarify anything.. well, er..  lolz.

Only if it is used as if it is a literal use when it is not.

But in the post you made where you used the word to include the dog, you made it abundantly clear what you meant. 

Stichtplate seems to think that his dog has the same status of family membership as his children. 

Yes, and there is a reason for that!

Ok then, let's say you and your family and your dog were on a desert island beyond society and the law. Just you and your instincts. Your emotional attachments even.

One more time:
If a significant proportion of English speakers (and 96% of English-speaking dog owners most certainly is that) use a word in a way that is contradicted by the dictionary, it is the dictionary that is wrong.  As the writers of the dictionary acknowledge every time a new edition comes out with updated definitions.  That's just how the English language works.

If you can't accept that language changes, well, you're just being nice*.

*Original meaning of the word, obvs, from roughly 13th century.  Though the 16th century definition also fits.

Edit to add:

And you seem to think you know more about the 'status' of members of his family than he does.  Quite special.

Well I'm finding it interesting. 

Nobody has to read it or get involved in it. 

Of course I know all that. So I am arguing that the definition is unlikely to be updated in the near future; I just don't believe that enough people use the word family to include dogs in a serious way to warrant it. I don't think it any more likely than extending the definition of "brother" to non-family members (see my earlier post).

Well I'd say this actually kicked off with Street's post, which they left there and never returned to, like a turd in a bag hanging from a bush.

But yes, I took issue with Stitchplate's assertion that they could use the word family to mean anything they wanted, and it did get a bit out of hand. But I hope no one was actually upset by it? It's just a bit of fun. I'm pretty sure ( and I hope) I haven't upset Stitchplate, who I have a lot of respect for from their previous posts. If I have, then I am genuinely sorry.

I'm sure he can correct me if I've misunderstood him on this.

He has.  Lots.  What he'll never do is get you to acknowledge it.

Is this in Germany ?

Troll within a troll.  The OP never returned to the thread either, it's undeniably top quality workmanship.

It's like two toothless dogs fighting over a bone...

Not offended and no apology necessary, I’m simply a little bored now.

We live in a society with decreasing birth rates and corresponding smaller genetic families which are ending up evermore fragmented through divorce and increasingly separated by distance.

The phrases work family and online family resonate with some, regimental family has been common currency for decades, my wife’s employer (large US multinational) often issues missives referring to the (insert company name) family and in my own work, the phrases “work wife/husband” have a very real and commonly understood meaning.

There’s an interesting discussion to be had around what “family” now means, it’s simply that you refuse to have it because it’s abundantly clear that it doesn’t fit your narrow OED definition and once you depart from that definition you don’t have an argument to present.