
In a Tale That Wags Dog Owners, They Rent Flocks for Bored Collies - J3L2404
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704681804576017731348653642.html?KEYWORDS=border+collie+phillips
======
troutwine
I'm able to keep my two Collies in happy style without renting sheep. We play
for two hours a day with a herding ball, have miles long walks and I referee
indoor rope tug fights while I work. Back from our morning run/hike, both dogs
are now sleeping peacefully on their day bed.

A wonderful breed, if you're physically strong and dedicated enough for them.

------
joshu
I wonder if there are equivalents for other breeds of dog. I don't think our
pup wants to herd, since she is a terrier.

~~~
jws
We play a little game called: _Get the mouse! Get the mouse!_

Great fun. Fortunately she is rubbish at actually catching the mice.
Eventually they fall for peanut butter in a live trap where they are lovingly
relocated to the railroad right of way where they either freeze to death or
are eaten by foxes.

~~~
joshu
Hmm. We don't have any mice that I've seen here.

We did have skunks in the backyard. The pup spent quite a bit of time huffing
and puffing at the back door ("I'll take care of this!") but we never let her
out.

Obligatory puppy picture: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshu/5128408411/>

~~~
aaronbrethorst
"Oops! You don't have permission to view this photo."

~~~
joshu
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshu/5129013658/>

Try that one.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
holy friggin' adorable puppy. that was worth the wait.

------
doorty
I have a border collie, and I've heard this story many times by other border
collie owners. If I didn't love the urban lifestyle, I would get some sheep
too. It would certainly be easier that trying to tire him out each day by
going on walks and taking him to the dog park.

------
burgerbrain
I wonder what they would say if I tried to get a pet pig to herd sheep.

 _"That'll do pig. That'll do."_

------
noidi
How about sharing a bit of the empathy reserved for the bored dog with the
sheep, which are essentially reduced from living, thinking, feeling beings to
just toys for the dog? This kind of speciesism sickens me.

~~~
noidi
To the downvoters: Do the sheep find being herded by dogs a pleasant
experience as well? If not (as I assume), how can you morally justify
increasing their suffering in order to reduce that of a dog?

~~~
iron_ball
Peremptory answer: Dogs are our pets. Sheep are our dinner.

Peremptory answer redacted for inherent biases: Dogs are our slaves. Sheep are
our murder victims.

Somewhat sympathetic answer: Sheep naturally flock together. The dogs just
reshape and redirect the flock. "Dog-broke" sheep, as mentioned in the
article, are used to the dogs and know they are not to be feared.

Sympathy-trumping counter-answer: given the steady destruction of sustainable
farming practices in the face of agribusiness hegemony, why begrudge the local
shepherds any extra source of income? At least these sheep aren't growing up
in a tiny stall in a factory farm.

~~~
noidi
Here's an upvote for taking the time to answer instead of just clicking on an
arrow.

Re: Somewhat sympathetic answer: I thought the reason sheep can be herded by a
dog at all is that they are timid and easily frightened, and think of the dog
as a predator. If they weren't afraid, they wouldn't defend themselves by
flocking.

Re: Sympathy-trumping counter-answer, economic argument: In my opinion moral
concerns outweigh economic concerns. Your mileage may vary.

Re: Sympathy-trumping counter-answer, factory farm argument: Harming animals
is not justified by the fact that they could have been harmed even more.
(Replace "animals" with "people" for plenty of potential analogies. I resist
the temptation to write any of them out for the fear of sounding like a
troll.)

~~~
philwelch
_Harming animals is not justified by the fact that they could have been harmed
even more._

For the most part, moral consideration to animal suffering is a consequence of
utilitarianism--the idea that all moral duties revolve around minimizing the
amount of suffering and maximizing the amount of pleasure in the world[1].
Most moral philosophers who take animal rights seriously (chiefly among them
Peter Singer, if you're familiar with the name) are utilitarians. But a
utilitarian is absolutely willing to cause small amounts of suffering to
alleviate larger amounts of suffering, because it's a net positive in the
"pleasure calculus".[2]

If you're not a utilitarian, then suffering isn't a morally relevant concern
and you base your morality on something else, usually some set of universal
rules and principles governing interactions between people.[3] These rules and
principles tend to be reciprocal by design, only governing how moral agents
treat other moral agents. Sheep aren't capable of moral agency, so even from a
deontological perspective you are unlikely to come up with any sort of moral
duty not to herd sheep with dogs.

Let's be clear here: I'm sure you could rationalize some type of moral system
where it's wrong to herd sheep with dogs, and I'm wary of this discussion
turning into an exercise to do just that. But I don't think that's the type of
moral system you would ever naturally arrive at if you weren't being
tendentious about that specific point.

[1] This is a naive kind of utilitarianism: Mill's utilitarianism also takes
into account the quality, not merely the quantity, of pleasure or suffering
involved, and there have been further philosophical refinements, none of which
change the basic point here.

[2] <http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=599>

[3] The textbook example is Kant's categorical imperative:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative>

~~~
noidi
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Don't worry, I'm clearly out of my depth
here, so I'm not going to debate you on this particular point any further --
you win. :-) (I still stand by my original statement, but I'm unable to put my
point to words as well as you can yours.)

What bothered me about the article, and prompted my original, poorly worded,
reply was the fact that dogs are treated with more empathy and respect than
other kinds of animals (even to the extent of harming other animals to bring
them joy). To me this humane attitude seems so intuitive that I feel like it
is not so much consciously learned to be felt for dogs as suppressed for all
other beings. I don't think there's anything special about dogs in particular
since they are not given the same status in all cultures. It's not about their
utility either (anymore): most people get dogs because they feel sympathy for
them, and not the other way around.

As you seem to be knowledgeable about ethics, do you happen to know of any
books that deal with this tendency of humans to strongly empathize with some
animals while having no trouble harming others? I'd like to read more about
the issue from any viewpoint, be it ethical, psychological, or cultural. I'd
like to better understand my own, intuitive worldview, which departed from
mainstream when I started thinking about these issues, as well as that of
people who do not share it.

~~~
philwelch
It's not an ethical thing, more a cultural thing. White middle-class Americans
are affectionate towards dogs. Other cultures eat dogs, or have the dogs fight
for sport. Why the difference? That's actually an interesting question. Not
one I'm equipped to answer, though.

I'd investigate your assumption that being herded by dogs causes sheep any
harm or suffering, though. It doesn't really seem that obvious to me that it
would.

