Corgi ownership category

[Michael Romanos]

What category of Corgi ownership are you.


1. Object oriented
Corgi is a status symbol, not appreciated for his/her own self but what could be said of the owner. Corgi almost regarded as an inanimate object with a similar lack of attention paid to him/her. Novelty could wear off leaving the Corgi under-cared and in need of physical and emotional help.

2, Exploitive utilitarian
Corgi trained exclusively for the benefit of people with no thought given to the subsequent effect on the dog. this can happen with Corgis who compete in conformation and other sports/recreational events or used in research, military, police, guarding, breeding, service. Common thread is the selfishness of the owner.

3. Need-depending
Over indulging on Corgi. For example using a Corgi as a source of satisfaction and resulting fulfilment of a need. A need could be substituting for a child/sibling in giving unconditional love and affection. The deeper the need in the person the more attachment to the Corgi who can become a therapeutic pet but akso neurotic.

4. Misguided naturalism
In a perfect world this type of relationship could be idyllic but we live in a world which is becoming more restrictive. The naturalists will allow their Corgis do whatever they want to do - wander, bark, fight etc

5. Responsible stewardship
Any interaction between Corgi and handler is examined and dissected to seek its appropriateness. The need for correctness in regards to laws can be extreme. Another example is the relaxation of natural selection in breeding programmes and the development of characters that can better able people cope with a companion dog.

6. Actualising
The Corgi becomes a respected significant 'other,' value for him/her self and not just for status, utility or emotional support. a handler can relinquish some of the need to control and can learn from one's Corgi. Channels of communication can be more receptive in a two-way relationship which builds the bond of trust and respect.


If it is understood why a person owns a Corgi then a trainer can better understand how to train the person to train his/her Corgi.

In my case, I think my relationship with Taylor, my Pem Corgi, is a mix of both 3 and 6.

[glencorgi]

Michael,

Where did you find this "report"? I'd like to know/learn more about the original context in which this appeared before commenting further.

Debbie

[MyPemCharlie]

The category descriptions seem a little terse or extreme, but I would say I try to build bonding, trust and respect with my dog (similar to #6 Actualization) through responsible stewardship (#5). However the description of Actualization as "significant other" sounds like humanizing the dog, which I don't...Charlie is a "significant" dog...not a human. The description of responsible stewardship where every single action is picked apart for correctness also seems a bit extreme. I do like the Webster dictionary definition of stewardship: "the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care", where management equals my provision of good food, a safe place to live, vet care, grooming, affection, and obedience training.

[MattC]

This is interesting. Nick's breeder interviewed us before we purchased him. She wanted to get to know us and also find the right puppy for our needs and lifestyle. I don't know what category she put us in.

[Peggy]

I think there are other catagories that have been left out.

2, Exploitive utilitarian
Corgi trained exclusively for the benefit of people with no thought given to the subsequent effect on the dog. this can happen with Corgis who compete in conformation and other sports/recreational events or used in research, military, police, guarding, breeding, service. Common thread is the selfishness of the owner.

Boy that sounds like an AR slant. I do not see the military or police that use dogs as being selfish owners. Many times the handlers do not own the dogs.

And if we breed our dogs we're being selfish? That's definately and AR opinion.

Like Debbie I'd like to know where you found this. It doesn't sound like a legitimate study/opinion to me.

Peggy

[Bailey's driver]

7. Corgi as a bike ride partner and attention getting device.

[Michael Romanos]

No categories were left out, meaning that the majority of dogs/Corgis fit into 1-6 or components of them, though they are not all embracing. Peggy - for 'owners' also read 'handlers.' I think you are mistaken if yiou don't believe that a lot of owners/handlers are selfish. Most dogs in service for farming, drugs, customs, police work, guarding industrial and commercial properties (and also a factor with private home guard dogs) do not enjoy normal social activities within a family and have the run of a home. A lot of breeding dogs also fit into this type of treatment as do some Corgis I know who are members of the WWCWC either from a past life (as show and breeding dogs) or as per current (re the Santa Claus breeder).
I would not interpret "significant other" as meaning other human but rather other anything that can bleed.
The main thrust of the writer was to categorise owners/handlers and their dogs/Corgis for purposes of training or retraining to try and correct errors of upbringing. All categories have their good points but some can have much more of a downside than do others. The article appeared in a NZ magazine.

[theimagunter]

I think I fall some where between 3 and 6 but I think some things are left out. I Love and adore my Harley (dependant in a way) and she depends on me for food, water, shelter, physical and mental stmuli and affection. I give all this too her (I do what I think is best for her) she in return gives me a lifetime of joy and unconditional and unending LOVE.
There are many reasons why people have dogs, I may not agree with the reasons (but I digress). The way this is written is very black and white and life is full of Grey's.
Thelma

[Michael Romanos]

I think the key to the ownership categories is PREDOMINANT.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

No categories were left out, meaning that the majority of dogs/Corgis fit into 1-6 or components of them, though they are not all embracing.

They may be all the catagories the author of this "study" came up with but IMO, there are other catagories that are not included.

Peggy - for 'owners' also read 'handlers.' I think you are mistaken if yiou don't believe that a lot of owners/handlers are selfish.

I did not say that I did not think that some, I'm not ready to say a lot, of owners are selfish. I said "I do not see the military or police that use dogs as being selfish owners." Meaning I do not see these handlers/owners as being selfish for having/using dogs in these capacities.

Are you saying it's selfish to use a dog as a police dog or in the military? Or as a seeing eye dog? And if so why?

Most dogs in service for farming, drugs, customs, police work, guarding industrial and commercial properties (and also a factor with private home guard dogs) do not enjoy normal social activities within a family and have the run of a home.

True, but they don't know any other life and for them it is normal. And many of them enjoy that life. I don't see it as wrong or selfish. Not every dog needs to be a dog in a home. They are after all DOGS not people.

And shoot, a person in the military doesn't exactly have a "normal" life much of the time either. Especially those that live in the barracks. It doesn't make it wrong, it's just not ideal.

And shoot how many of us have an "ideal" life?

A lot of breeding dogs also fit into this type of treatment as do some Corgis I know who are members of the WWCWC either from a past life (as show and breeding dogs) or as per current (re the Santa Claus breeder).

Here it depends on the breeder. And yes there are degrees. Some are better than others. Some of them do have a home life and yes, some are kennel raised. Again, a different lifestyle. I cannot and will not condem all breeders who use kennels. Not too long ago that was common of show breeders, to have large kennels and many, many dogs. Most of the large show kennels are now gone, but a few are left. The dogs get good care and are not abused. Not what you want for a lifestyle for your dog, but it is their choice.

I really wish you'd come up with some other term for this breeder, as he is in no way a "Santa Claus", no matter what he looks like. He's a casual breeder.

I would not interpret "significant other" as meaning other human but rather other anything that can bleed.

For me "significant other" means another person. A dog is not equal to a human and is not a significant other. A dog is a pet.

The main thrust of the writer was to categorise owners/handlers and their dogs/Corgis for purposes of training or retraining to try and correct errors of upbringing. All categories have their good points but some can have much more of a downside than do others. The article appeared in a NZ magazine.

And who is this writer, why can we not know who it is and see if there are other articles or studies by him/her?

Is the magazine on line?

Peggy

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

The main thrust of the writer was to categorise owners/handlers and their dogs/Corgis for purposes of training or retraining to try and correct errors of upbringing. All categories have their good points but some can have much more of a downside than do others. The article appeared in a NZ magazine.

So once again the original author is not being given his/her due credit. It would be really nice for just once to have something you've copied presented in this fashion. For example, I was reading this article by John Soanso and he came up with these categories of dog ownership. His point was by understanding the type of owner a dog came from, it would make it easier to retrain the dog in a new situation or help the owner to be rethink his/her methods with his/her dog.

These categories are far from "all-embracing," there is a whole lot of AR slant in the wording. Without being able to actually read the article and get a better context of it, I don't deem it worth discussing.

Debbie

[Michael Romanos]

Well Debbie, dont YOU (or your shadow, Peggy) discuss it. Leave it to others if they wish to.