Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

petsmarts doggiedays restrict a"certain" breed

seeker
June 18th, 2006, 08:04 PM
www.petsmart.com/doggiedaycamp/index.shtml

Puppyluv
June 18th, 2006, 08:22 PM
While I was walking Layla this evening, we met a lady with a pit-bull mix on leash. Layla ran up to him in her usual "c'mon lets play!" way. The lady asked me if she could let him off leash, i told her of course (why would I say no?!?!?) Those two had such a great romp, and the lil bully was so happy. She told me that I was the first person in two weeks to let their dog play with hers. If she lets him off leash, people scream at her to leash him (even though their dogs are all off leash). She said she also tried to take her dog to a doggy day care (I don't know where) and they wouldn't take him because of his breed.

pitgrrl
June 18th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Although I think there is a potential for re-enforcement of nasty breed prejudices by specifically banning one type of dog in their rules, I really don't think that there is a place for bull breeds in the vast majority of doggie daycares.
It is unfortunate that it has to be done this way, but in practicle terms it does make sense to me. Why would you want to put a dog of a breed that will likely show some degree of dog aggression at some point into a often chaotic, likely ill supervised environment?
Although in theory DA bullies would be covered by other rules, what happens when an AmStaff that has been going there for a while starts to come into maturity and "turns on" one day at daycare?

technodoll
June 18th, 2006, 09:30 PM
bullies are not the only ones suffering a bad rap... try telling people that the sweet dogs they are petting are akitas, and watch many of them step back as if suddenly they have caca on their hands :confused: although... my mission is to re-educate these folks with misconceptions about the breed and many a time i've walked away from a situation with a sense of something gone right. a lot of petting, doggie kissies while sitting and giving the paw, explanations about the breed's reality (rarely if ever people-aggressive, but often not tolerant of same-sex dogs SAME AS many other breeds), the effect of genes and environment and education, etc... seems to work, phew! helps to have two willing smoooshies to give the paw and say "hello" :o

LavenderRott
June 18th, 2006, 09:36 PM
Although I think there is a potential for re-enforcement of nasty breed prejudices by specifically banning one type of dog in their rules, I really don't think that there is a place for bull breeds in the vast majority of doggie daycares.
It is unfortunate that it has to be done this way, but in practicle terms it does make sense to me. Why would you want to put a dog of a breed that will likely show some degree of dog aggression at some point into a often chaotic, likely ill supervised environment?
Although in theory DA bullies would be covered by other rules, what happens when an AmStaff that has been going there for a while starts to come into maturity and "turns on" one day at daycare?

Hmm.

How about this - I am sure there is a clause in the contract that one signs when they enroll their dog into the daycare, that allows the facility to send dogs home or refulse to have dogs back that show aggression.

My mom has a standard poodle that went to "doggy daycare" as a pup and is now very likely to be aggressive to a strange dog. Yet he would be allowed to go to this facility while a dog that looks like it might be a "pit bull" with no history of aggression would be excluded.

Sorry, I will not be spending any more money at PetSmart and, you will find that at the bottom of the page there is a link to "Contact Us" I have done so.

pitgrrl
June 18th, 2006, 09:43 PM
I guess what I would be worried about is the ability of the employees to break up a fight, in the midst of many dogs, if one were to happen. I would also worry that they may not have the skills, experience or time to see the signs, sometimes seconds before a fight happens.

Honestly I don't like to see any breed singled out for any reason, but I'm just not sure this is as clear cut as other forms of breed predjudice as I truely don't think that, as a rule, buuly breeds belong in environments with many offleash dogs.

mafiaprincess
June 18th, 2006, 09:54 PM
I don't like seeign anywhere saying no to certain breeds.. If they are going to make it policy it should be any breed that had dog agression in the breed standard really. Lot easier for them to make a case that way..

I know there are nice pitties with no dog aggression issues, but in general they don't usually belong in dog parks either, and without rules clueless people go anyhow..

kaytris
June 18th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Most responsible pitbull owners won't take their dogs to off leash areas, because of the possibility of their dogs getting involved in (and ending up blamed for causing) any spats or fights at the park.

How is this policy any different?

erykah1310
June 18th, 2006, 11:52 PM
Most responsible pitbull owners won't take their dogs to off leash areas, because of the possibility of their dogs getting involved in (and ending up blamed for causing) any spats or fights at the park.

How is this policy any different?

It is different because that is the 'responsible' owners perogative, there is no one telling them that they cant.

Sorry, I will not be spending any more money at PetSmart and, you will find that at the bottom of the page there is a link to "Contact Us" I have done so.
So have I and I too will not be shopping there anymore, I spend a small fortune there bi-weekly and now i will bring my buisness else where. Not just because there are prolly many good reasons that a "bully" shouldnt be at Day Camp, but because Isnt Petsmart one of the best stores to encourage rescues??? How is this "restriction" going to help any abused or neglected Bullies?? When a company like Petsmart is putting such a strong "BAN" on them what would make someone go in there and adopt a bully from a rescue??? Hrmmm?

Inverness
June 19th, 2006, 12:50 AM
I agree with pitgrrl on this. A doggy daycare or any other multi-dog environment is no place for a bully type of dog. I, before anyone else, am the first one to try and educate people about this. However, the way Petsmart has put the whole thing really makes it look like a ban and adds to the actual pitbull hysteria. There's no need to mention any breed in this policy - the rules should simply read that any dog who has an aggression potential around other dogs is not allowed. To me, this would include quite a number of Dachshunds, JRTs, Minpins, etc... ;)

phoenix
June 19th, 2006, 07:20 AM
It is different because that is the 'responsible' owners perogative, there is no one telling them that they cant.

So, if 'responsible' owners take responsibility and don't go/use off leash spaces because they know of the dangers for both other dogs and their own... that leaves the irresponsible ones who would ... which is why policies are required in the first place. Policies are always in place for irresponsible people who don't make good choices in the first place.

LavenderRott
June 19th, 2006, 07:39 AM
Well, I must say that I am more then a bit surprised by the response of this board.

When the Ontario Ban was being debated and then implimented, members were outraged and writing to everyone that they could think of.

Now here comes a retail facility that wants you to buy all of your pit bull needs at their store and no one seems to be outraged over the company policy of refusing to allow your dog participate in activities because of it's breed.

Well, the rottweiler contingency is pretty angry. We have sent our e-mails and will be withholding our money.

pitgrrl
June 19th, 2006, 09:33 AM
I think there is certainly a problem with how the policy has been written and perhaps people's efforts could be concentrated on re-writting a non-breed specific version. However, I think there is a difference between a ban on owning specific breeds, as there is nothing inherently dangerous with having a bully type dog, and a policy which attempts to keep dogs who really shouldn't be in that type of environment in the first place, out of those activities.

To me it's a hard to figure out which has the potential for more harm, a policy which can add to the general hysteria over "pitbulls" vs. allowing dogs into an environment which is really setting them up to fail and may result in an incedint which attracts even more negative attention.

technodoll
June 19th, 2006, 09:44 AM
To me it's a hard to figure out which has the potential for more harm, a policy which can add to the general hysteria over "pitbulls" vs. allowing dogs into an environment which is really setting them up to fail and may result in an incedint which attracts even more negative attention.


i agree... setting a dog up (regardless of the breed) in a situation where it is bound to fail is NO example of common sense, IMO...

Inverness
June 19th, 2006, 09:57 AM
Well, I must say that I am more then a bit surprised by the response of this board.

When the Ontario Ban was being debated and then implimented, members were outraged and writing to everyone that they could think of.

Now here comes a retail facility that wants you to buy all of your pit bull needs at their store and no one seems to be outraged over the company policy of refusing to allow your dog participate in activities because of it's breed.

Well, the rottweiler contingency is pretty angry. We have sent our e-mails and will be withholding our money.

Not sure I understand what type of reaction you were expecting. :confused:

I don't want Petsmart to allow me or anyone else to take a pitbull to daycare in an open environment like this. That's how accidents happen and it's what everyone is waiting for in their attempt to totally eradicate the bully breeds.

Changes should either be made in the way the policy is written or else, Petsmart should be offering alternate daycare options for dogs with weaker social abilities.

erykah1310
June 19th, 2006, 12:06 PM
SO what im gathering here is that most members seem to think its alright to ban the bullies from a daycare environment because they have tendancies to fight other dogs. SO whats the big hoopla with the breed ban in ontario then? Just because there are many 'reponsible' owners who socialize their bullies and do everything in their power to make them happy healthy dogs there are still the 'irresponsible' ones.
So bully owners take offence to muzzling and sterilizing their beloved pet, but have no objection to them being singled out and 'banned' by a rather large Pet store????

Isnt that just a way to protect other dogs and people too? Im confused here. I agree with Lavender Rott,100%.

Also I do agree that a policy to protect further damage to the reputation of Bullys is in one way a good idea, but however why should they state it in such a rude manner???? I take offence to how Petsmart worded and generally added to the hysteria of Bullies.

Inverness
June 19th, 2006, 12:19 PM
You mean you don't see the difference between a provincial ban (and the euthanasias that come along) and a daycare policy to avoid dogs being hurt/killed ? :confused:

You don't see the difference between having to muzzle your dog to be allowed to take him for a walk and finding alternate arrangements to have him boarded ? :confused:

You don't see the difference between a store policy and hundreds of pitbulls being killed just because they are pitbulls ? :confused:

I, as an intelligent pitbull owner, will never go protesting that I want access to open area daycare for my dogs. I would never put my dogs in a situation like that. They are wonderful dogs, but they are pitbulls and not suited for this type of environment.

And if you read well, this is exactly what I said: Petsmart should either rephrase their policy to avoid adding to the pitbull ban hysteria or else, offer alternatives for pitbull owners.

technodoll
June 19th, 2006, 12:20 PM
SO what im gathering here is that most members seem to think its alright to ban the bullies from a daycare environment because they have tendancies to fight other dogs. SO whats the big hoopla with the breed ban in ontario then? Just because there are many 'reponsible' owners who socialize their bullies and do everything in their power to make them happy healthy dogs there are still the 'irresponsible' ones.
So bully owners take offence to muzzling and sterilizing their beloved pet, but have no objection to them being singled out and 'banned' by a rather large Pet store????


my take on this is... many dog breeds that are not exactly "sociable" with other dogs can and do make wonderful family pets, as they are not human-aggressive (of course we are talking well-socialized animals in the hands of responsible owners). So why should they have to be sterilized and wear muzzles in public, which suggests the dogs is human-aggressive? that, to me, is the crux and the outcry of any breed ban. Let's not confuse the matter of human vs dog aggression here...
i agree the petsmart thing is not pet-smart at all, however they do have a point, they just need to re-word it. As an akita owner, i would be stupid to bring my dogs into a doggy daycare free-for-all: i KNOW my boy would end up fighting with most males there, which would only add oil to the fire (how many people are scared of akitas because of their aggression? they are on the brink of BSL! but they are not human aggressive, no more than any other breed out there... just not same-sex dog tolerant, in general). But not all akita owners are responsible enough to think like that, and if such people need warnings to avoid more bad rap against their breed of choice...well.. perhaps it's not a bad idea at all, IMO.

technodoll
June 19th, 2006, 12:24 PM
from the policy:

Who may not attend?

Intact (unneutered) male dogs or pregnant females
Dogs who haven't been socialized with other dogs
Dogs in the "bully breed" classification (e.g. Pit Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Bull Dogs or mixed breeds that have the appearance or characteristics of one of these breeds)
Wolves/wolf hybrids

so that means bitches in heat can go, as long as they're not pregnant! :crazy: yayaaay the party is on! :crazy:

i mean... WHAT are they THINKING!! neutered males can and will fight over a bitch in heat, and other bitches often also attack because of the "scent"! i wonder who writes these "policies" in the first place. :confused:

erykah1310
June 19th, 2006, 01:37 PM
Dogs or mixed breeds that have the appearance or characteristics of one of these breeds)

Well according to this Kita cant go either, many Petsmart employees mistake her as a pitbull. ( dont have a clue about dogs I guess) none the less, she is very good with other dogs and has never been in a fight let alone the cause of one.

I, as an intelligent pitbull owner, will never go protesting that I want access to open area daycare for my dogs. I would never put my dogs in a situation like that. They are wonderful dogs, but they are pitbulls and not suited for this type of environment.


I guess that myself with a dog that gets mistaken frequently, have no buisness protesting unfair and unjust wording in this list of restrictions. Its not just the Bullies, its any dog that resembles one! How is that reasonable?
Im not saying that all Bullies should be able to attend these type of things, im just saying that there are much MUCH better ways to word that.

technodoll
June 19th, 2006, 01:41 PM
they should just say "any dog deemed aggressive or overly-dominant", period.

and state "no intact dogs", male AND female. it's just common sense.

:pawprint:

erykah1310
June 19th, 2006, 02:39 PM
they should just say "any dog deemed aggressive or overly-dominant", period.

and state "no intact dogs", male AND female. it's just common sense.


Ditto that!

You mean you don't see the difference between a provincial ban (and the euthanasias that come along) and a daycare policy to avoid dogs being hurt/killed ?
With a pet chain as Petsmart, explain to me how singleing out breeds aids with the reduction of bullies being euthanized? If i decided on adopting a bully from a rescue who is at petsmart, fill out the app and everything then get approved. It would discourage me to find that the same store that is aiding with adoptions of rescue animals is also just as quick to single out specific breeds.

You don't see the difference between a store policy and hundreds of pitbulls being killed just because they are pitbulls ?
Again I dont see how a store policy is helping with Pitbulls being euthanized, i think any pet store should try to stay away from singleing out dogs. Regardless of breeds. Seriously... How do you think this the policy as it is stated is going to help people to realize that bullies are not the dangerous blood thirsty dogs that the media and now ontario government has portrayed them as?
IMO petsmart seems to be siding with the hype. They should NOT be pointing out breeds that they basically dont trust! Regardless of the situation or environment.

LM1313
June 19th, 2006, 03:05 PM
Hmmm, I can see both sides of the issue. I'm on the fence.

But it's certainly stupid to allow unspayed females there! What are they thinking?

Edit: I will say that I don't think this is in the same vein as the Ontario ban, which is in place because pit bulls are supposedly so aggressive towards humans, which is a myth. This is about pit bulls being aggressive towards dogs, which is not a myth.

Of course individual pit bulls can be dog friendly, just as individual labs can hate water or individual collies can have no herding instincts, which is why I'm on the fence about the issue; but as a breed, they ARE dog aggressive, as for hundreds of years they were selectively bred to encourage dog aggression and to never back down in a fight, even if they're getting thrashed.

phoenix
June 19th, 2006, 03:07 PM
Again I dont see how a store policy is helping with Pitbulls being euthanized, i think any pet store should try to stay away from singleing out dogs. Regardless of breeds. Seriously... How do you think this the policy as it is stated is going to help people to realize that bullies are not the dangerous blood thirsty dogs that the media and now ontario government has portrayed them as?

Let me try to explain to you how this store policy would help pitbulls.

Store with no policy allows a dog with dog-aggression as an accepted breed characteristic to go into day care. Pitbull kills small dog in ensuing event that day. Media jumps all over it; dog is euthanized; More people become "for" a ban because "clearly" these dogs are unsafe. Meanwhile, how fair is that? The dog has been set up for failure.

Technodoll probably has the best rewording, but if a dog breed is KNOWN to be dog-aggressive, it shouldn't be in daycare with other dogs. They should, as Inverness said, provide individual boarding or another alternative for them. BUT honestly, if they're going to be a successful doggie daycare, they can't be letting ignorant owners bring in dog-aggressive animals and leave them semi-supervised.

If someone were to 'rescue' a pitbull from a petchain-sponsored organization, I would think that they would be EDUCATED by such a policy, that they are rescuing a great family pet but not a dog that should be trusted around other dogs off leash.

seeker
June 19th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Well, I must say that I am more then a bit surprised by the response of this board.

When the Ontario Ban was being debated and then implimented, members were outraged and writing to everyone that they could think of.

Now here comes a retail facility that wants you to buy all of your pit bull needs at their store and no one seems to be outraged over the company policy of refusing to allow your dog participate in activities because of it's breed.

Well, the rottweiler contingency is pretty angry. We have sent our e-mails and will be withholding our money.

The response has surprised me too !
Thank the rotty community for the support . Many of us here have spent much of our free time during the past 2 years trying to educate the general public regarding this manor . It is unfortunate that now it appears some other dog owners have missed the message . This is a group that I had not even considered to be a part of the problem and for the most part has shown much support in the past while. But from what I am reading today some have swallowed the government and media campaign hook line and sinker . It Is Not Just Pitbulls That Can Be Agressive !

seeker
June 19th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Not sure I understand what type of reaction you were expecting. :confused:

I don't want Petsmart to allow me or anyone else to take a pitbull to daycare in an open environment like this.

But a Sharpai , the chinese fighting dog is OK , The Argintine Dogo is OK , the Cane Corso is OK , the Wolfhounds etc etc . There are many other breeds that during history were trained to fight other dogs , animals and even some that were trained to hunt and kill humans . Yet I do not see their names on the Provincial ban list nor the Petsmart one . Sorry but my money goes elsewhere .
Your idea of different times or areas for the smaller breeds is a good one and could have been implemented by the stores policy under the "common sense" rule that nobody seems to even think of anymore .

erykah1310
June 19th, 2006, 04:18 PM
I too am amazed that Bully owners and enthusiests are taking this so lightly, the fact of the matter is: just because YOU wouldnt take your dog anyway doesnt make it alright for Petsmart to point fingers at breeds. It should state " any dog deemed aggressive or excessivly dominant"
They stated that all dogs would be assessed for behavior, but none the less they pointed directly at Pitbulls, Amstaffs, and other bully breeds! even just a dog that slightly resembles one!
I am outraged, although the bully owners may not be.

technodoll
June 19th, 2006, 04:21 PM
you know... the three MOST aggressive dogs at our neighborhood dog park are a golden retriever, a jack-russell, and a great dane... all males, all intact. hah. :cool:

pitgrrl
June 19th, 2006, 05:20 PM
The response has surprised me too !
Thank the rotty community for the support . Many of us here have spent much of our free time during the past 2 years trying to educate the general public regarding this manor . It is unfortunate that now it appears some other dog owners have missed the message . This is a group that I had not even considered to be a part of the problem and for the most part has shown much support in the past while. But from what I am reading today some have swallowed the government and media campaign hook line and sinker . It Is Not Just Pitbulls That Can Be Agressive !

I truely don't think this is a matter of buying into government or media hype, I think the concerns being expressed are very much in the vein of trying to avoid any further incidents which would likely end up in the news and add feul to the fire.

I think it is clear that not only "pitbulls" are prone to dog aggression, and I absolutely agree that Petsmart should use other means of screening any dogs who try and enroll in day care.

It is certainly not, on my part atleast, a matter of having "missed the message", rather it is a problem of conflicting messages. Which adage wins out, "punish the deed, not the breed" or "never trust a pitbull not to fight" ?

I would love to believe that all dog owners, of whatever breed, would take the time and responsibility to identify dog aggressive behavior and manage that accordingly, but that obviously isn't happening, so what do we do?

I would be all for using consumer pressure to try and get Petsmart to re-write their day care policies to better reflect the fact that dog aggression can come up in many dogs. What I find dangerous, however, is when in our efforts to fight breed discrimination, we start to misrepresent "pitbulls". How much more long term harm will be done if we start to present "pitbulls" as just your "average", if that even exsists, dog who can go to the dog park or doggie day care? (and just for the sake of clarity, I'm sure that there are many other breeds for whom the same could be said, however I'll leave it up to those who are more familiar with those breeds to comment)

I do think it is absolutely unfair of Petsmart to single out one group of breeds as the only ones unsuitable for day care, and frankly I've never spent a cent there and this certainly is not going to make me start, however I could not, in all good conscience, say that I think bully breeds should be there.

jesse's mommy
June 19th, 2006, 05:25 PM
Petsmart has definitely lost my business. Even though I have no desire to put Jesse in their daycare. I fortunately have another daycare/spa for Jesse to go to and they can't wait to have her. They truly understand and appreciate the bully breeds and this daycare has one on one human/dog interaction in the "playroom". They don't have the mentality that a doggie daycare is a place for a "let's put all the dogs together in one room". They think for these kinds of "events" the owners and trainers should be present regardless of the breed. They truly believe punish the deed not the breed. Anyway, sorry for the threadjack, I was rambling. I don't think Petsmart is being responsible with their daycare at all. They should probably rethink their policies all together. I will not be returning to their store.

Schwinn
June 19th, 2006, 07:31 PM
I think the issue here is a) timing and b)wording. Had this come up five years ago, or even five years from now, it wouldn't be quite a sore spot. Secondly, the wording is very close the bill's wording (any breed displaying similar characteristics). Now, maybe this has always been thier policy, but if this is something new, I'm a little inclined to also be rubbed the wrong way. I'm also not sure I completely agree with it. As has been mentioned, there are certainly other breeds besides the bully breeds that are dog aggressive, but it's only the bully breeds (and wolfhounds) that are being singled out. Why now, and why only those breeds, with that wording? Is it just a coincidence that it's the same time AND same wording as BSL? I'm skeptical.

seeker
June 19th, 2006, 07:55 PM
Schwinn it's not even wolfhounds it specifically says wolves and hybrids , they didn't even exclude "wild dogs from Bornio":D .
Pitbulls are being singled out and I totally agree the wording is too similar to Bill132 and I stated that in my reply to the email I recieved from Petsmart .

pitgrrl
June 19th, 2006, 08:06 PM
I agree that the wording is close to that of 132, but this isn't a new policy is it? I've been seeing discussions on this for atleast 6 months, if not more, on pitbull forums and recieved a bunch of e-mails about it quite a while ago.

technodoll
June 19th, 2006, 08:12 PM
IMO, a wording of "house rules" should go something like this to be fair to all dogs (from http://www.spawoof.com/eng/daycare.asp"

All dogs must pass an evaluation test prior to joining our day care facility. Should your dog not pass the evaluation test, for safety reasons we can not permit him or her to participate in the day care schedule. We have a designated area where he or she will play and still enjoy his stay with us.

Proof of all vaccinations is mandatory.
All male dogs 6 months and older must be neutered.

the only thing i don't understand, is why females are allowed to be intact over 6 months of age? :confused:

Inverness
June 19th, 2006, 09:08 PM
I really don't understand the direction this thread is taking. From the very beginning, everyone agreed that Petsmart's rules should be rewritten to avoid pointing a finger at any specific breed and that there was absolutely no need to mention the bully breeds in the wording since so many breeds are just not suited for environments like this. Wasn't this the purpose of the whole exercise ??? Why take this any further ? Has anyone here said they agreed with bill 132 ? We just moved on to talking about the fact that we would not take our pitbulls to this type of daycare anyways, were there a policy or not !

Why on Earth would this not be OK ? Do you mean that in order to look like a true bully lover, I should scream each time my dogs are not allowed somewhere ? But I AGREE my dogs should not go to daycare like this. You don't ? You'd take your dogs there ? You'd place them in an open environment like that with other dogs they've never met and tell them to go and play ? Well I find this quite disturbing. From what I gather, anyone here who doesn't oppose to ANY and ALL form of repression, even if totally legitimate, is a BAD pitbull owner.

Well I'm sorry to disagree with you. This is going to sound harsh, but if you want to be able to take your dog everywhere, dog parks, daycare, or any multi-dog environment, don't you think you should own a Golden Retriever ? Isn't it part of living with a bully to stay away from certain environments, because they are simply not appropriate for your dog ?

Anyways, I'll go and take the dogs out now. If I want to be a true bully lover tonight, should I just open the crates and let the 6 pitbulls go and "play" together ? Well I think I won't try. After all, these guys made it out of Ontario and into my home, and I intend to keep them alive and in one piece, as much as possible.

phoenix
June 19th, 2006, 09:16 PM
Seeker, I just want to say that I am NOT caught up in media hype. Thank you but I am a great deal more intelligent than that. My POINT is that some owners make responsible choices for their dogs and others do not... and it is those owners that force businesses to implement policies which may appear unfair. This is life... if there were no irresponsible ignorant pitbull owners (and let's be frank... there are a fair number of these), of course this would be unnecessary. Are you saying that the store should put a policy in place that guarantees an owners' right to allow their pit to attend daycare as long as they pass an evaluation?
Please do correct me if I am mistaken. Could a dog aggressive animal not pass an evaluation and then become aggressive suddenly without warning? Also, is it a given that some breeds, including pitbulls, will at some point become dog aggressive even if in the past they have shown themselves to be tolerant of other dogs? I don't know this type of dog well, my dogs have played with young pits and had a great time, but my understanding is that older mature pits (over 2 y) can't be trusted alone with other dogs ever.

technodoll
June 19th, 2006, 09:18 PM
yeah. what inverness said :)

kaytris
June 19th, 2006, 09:25 PM
I would compare this policy to an amusement park's rule "Pregnant women and children under x-height cannot ride this ride".

There is a huge difference between the amusement park's policy and the government legislating the number of children you can have.

I would probably change Petsmart's policy to read "Dogs from breeds with fighting heritage" to cover bullies, shar pei's, tosa's and so on.

I'm against Ontario's BSL, but I think a company has the right to choose who gets to use their daycare.

technodoll
June 19th, 2006, 09:37 PM
I would probably change Petsmart's policy to read "Dogs from breeds with fighting heritage" to cover bullies, shar pei's, tosa's and so on

but then wouldn't that just be banning more breeds, not the deed? not because a dog is of "Fighting heritage" that it automatically makes them fighting machines. This is where Individuals come in: every dog has its own temperament, likes, dislikes, social abilities, etc. I have met meek, submissive pitbulls and hysterical, biting labs... which dog should NOT attend doggy daycare?

as i posted below, assessing an individual dog's temperament AND having the owner's full disclosure on the dog's behavior & personality is the key for "social success". doesn't matter what the dog looks like! :pawprint:

pitgrrl
June 19th, 2006, 09:57 PM
Are you saying that the store should put a policy in place that guarantees an owners' right to allow their pit to attend daycare as long as they pass an evaluation?
Please do correct me if I am mistaken. Could a dog aggressive animal not pass an evaluation and then become aggressive suddenly without warning? Also, is it a given that some breeds, including pitbulls, will at some point become dog aggressive even if in the past they have shown themselves to be tolerant of other dogs? I don't know this type of dog well, my dogs have played with young pits and had a great time, but my understanding is that older mature pits (over 2 y) can't be trusted alone with other dogs ever.

This is what I was trying to bring up in an earlier post. A "pitbull" may pass an evalutaion at a year, and then one day, somewhere between 2 and 3, they've reached maturity and they "turn on" in the midst of a dozen dogs. That is going to be a disaster.
Another potential problem is selective dog aggression. I would bet that if I took my two dogs to 5 day care evaluations they would pass 4 or even 5 of them, as we've done alot of training to manage their dog agression and it is only some dogs which they are reactive to. In my experience most dog aggression is not across the board, but rather selective to some degree and could therefor be missed in an evaluation if the owner is in denial enough to be there in the first place.

mafiaprincess
June 19th, 2006, 10:05 PM
I doubt petsmart's policy is new. Petsmart has had american doggie daycare for a long time. I doubt it's been written to reflect ontario's bsl because they are an american company... and there ane no petsmart doggie daycares in ontario, none in canada I didn't think as of yet.

wdawson
June 19th, 2006, 10:14 PM
to be honest.......who really cares about petsmart and the policies they have...they don't carry the products i use anyway , so i don't shop there. they are a big corporation that deals with big corporations that all vie for product placement , they are the walmart of pet stores.....if you don't like the policies don't go......and would you really want skippy the summer student making min wage providing daycare for you pet?

seeker
June 20th, 2006, 05:48 PM
Seeker, I just want to say that I am NOT caught up in media hype. Thank you but I am a great deal more intelligent than that.

S/ It was not my intention to question your intellect .

My POINT is that some owners make responsible choices for their dogs and others do not... and it is those owners that force businesses to implement policies which may appear unfair. This is life... if there were no irresponsible ignorant pitbull owners (and let's be frank... there are a fair number of these), of course this would be unnecessary. Are you saying that the store should put a policy in place that guarantees an owners' right to allow their pit to attend daycare as long as they pass an evaluation?

S/ Not at all My point was there are other aggressive breeds that can and do show animal aggression , that can play for a while and then tire of the other dog{s}.This is not specifically a pitbull problem and I ask if you think it would be alright to drop a 155lb Cane Corso off at doggieday care as long as he was showing no aggression ? I suspect you will answer no and I totally agree. But that dog could be left there and a 35 lb Staffie cannot .

Please do correct me if I am mistaken. Could a dog aggressive animal not pass an evaluation and then become aggressive suddenly without warning? Also, is it a given that some breeds, including pitbulls, will at some point become dog aggressive even if in the past they have shown themselves to be tolerant of other dogs?

"Some breeds including pitbulls"
S/ My point exactly .And not just pitbulls.

I don't know this type of dog well, my dogs have played with young pits and had a great time, but my understanding is that older mature pits (over 2 y) can't be trusted alone with other dogs ever.[/QUOTE]

S/ I had 2 poodles that used to play with a mature Staffy for much more than 2 years .At first I was quite concerned but as time went on I remained watchful but there were never any problems and the one poodles was very agressive and sometimes would try to dominate the situation . My poodles weighed about 12 lbs the Staffie about 30. My present 10yr old neutered male is regularly introduced to stray cats that drop into the barn on an ongoing basis . He has never attacked one even when scatched . He is not tollerant of other dogs his size or bigger but plays with the neighbours border collie once in a while . He was attacked by a very agressive Golden R when he was a about a year old this is what made him warry of larger dogs than himself i think.
I now own 3 pits and we have a rescue as well . Believe me I would never drop any of them off at a doggie day care but I am pretty sure 2 of them would be alright in that situation but I would not risk my dogs just to prove a point .Especially under Bill 132
My comments previously were to point out that it is a false sense of security to label pitbulls as the only dog capable of being agressive , just as B132 has .And that I was surprised to read that sentiment here . Why try to pretend as a store policy that they are protectiong the other dogs when they are only banning one of the breeds that might cause a problem. All this does is reinforce the govenments and media messages that pitbulls and only pitbulls are the problem , when we all know that is not the case.

babyrocky1
June 20th, 2006, 11:11 PM
I think that this business most definately has singled out " Bullie Breeds" and I don't the wording is coincidental so I will not buy products there.
I also think that the board is sounding further apart on this issue than they actually are. Most people think that it is the wording of the policy that is the problem. I feel that the problem goes deeper than that because i think there has already been a similar problem relating to grooming with "Pit Bulls".
If they are truly concerned with "fighting breeds" there would be a much longer list. This seems only to be a response to the bill and something that I could see the Bryant monster using to back up his claims. Can you just imagine him saying something like even large chain stores only restrict "pit bulls' from joining there Doggy Day Care?
I sure can, and I believe that in this climate, true dog loving businesses should be more sensative to the issue.

LM1313
June 20th, 2006, 11:51 PM
This seems only to be a response to the bill

I don't think it is, though, because if you look where the "doggy daycares" are located, none of them are in Ontario (or even Canada.)

Georgiapeaches
June 21st, 2006, 01:18 AM
Personally, I wouldn't want to take my dog to a doggie daycare regardless of breed. There is always the possibility of so many things going wrong.

Uuhhh I was previously discriminated against in an Ontario Petsmart in the fall and this much uproar didn't happen. No big boycott...hint hint ;)
http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=20820

Anyhow, after plenty of calls to Petsmart's head office (after conversing with the asinine Ontario district manager), they finally stated they would put up signs stating they could not groom any dog required to be muzzled for longer then 20 minutes. Including in the sign that Pitbulls/Pitbull type dogs are included in the rule due to the Ontario law. No signs have yet to be posted....

P.S. we have since found other places that accept them and love to do their nails :)

twodogsandacat
June 21st, 2006, 04:13 AM
I am not a big fan of PetSmart but I have never been treated badly by their staff. On one occasion we were discriminated by a customer who called our dog a ‘pit bull’ while kids were petting him. The arrogant woman had my girlfriend in tears as she defended our new (and extremely popular) puppy. It was a PetSmart employee who came to her defense and not only corrected the woman about socializing dogs of all breeds at an early age but also pointed out that she was wrong on the breed identification too, that he was in fact a Rhodesian Ridgeback mix – (which I have since found out is a breed her family has owned on more than one occasion). After that we learned to suffer the fools and did not care if anybody called him a pit bull…until Bill 132 was passed.

My honest opinion of doggy dare care at PetSmart would be that they want the easy money and no liability. A pit bull in with a mix of small yappy dogs may be too much of a chance for them to take and as stated by many, most pit bull owners wouldn’t take their dogs there anyways. As the owner of a large breed I seldom trust anyone enough to take care of my dog.

Their wording however sucks and it is very similar to the wording of Bill 132. No matter what their policy is I would agree 100% the wording should be changed.

That said I have been in a few American PetSmarts. On two occasions in large cities – in Atlanta, GA (PetSmart sponsoring an adoption event for a rescue) and in Buffalo, NY (PetSmart sponsoring an vaccination event, with a huge line up) I have seen large numbers of the bully breeds present and nobody seemed too concerned.

While they may have policies regarding day care they will take these dogs into their training classes and allow them to be walked around the store (without a muzzle). In Ontario I have seen muzzled pit bulls but that's the law.

In regards to the grooming in Canada. Corporations risk fines of $60, 000 if an incident occurred. While smaller companies may not of considered this PetSmart seems to have considered it as part of the bottom line and panicked. Sadly this means that many dogs that the groomers have known personally for years and had no issues with are now banned at the corporate level….but the same groomers do work on the side too. I wonder if PetSmart consulted with their groomers before deciding on their policy and if they know some of their groomers are making house calls after hours and taking the entire forty bucks for themselves - tax free.

Luvmypit
June 21st, 2006, 10:07 AM
Im not one of those pit bull owners that agree with any of the policy no matter how they say it unless they have a bigger list of dog aggressive dogs. I agree this has nothing to do with Bill 132 but it DOES have to do with BSL no doubt. Who cares who BSL it was we cannot be ignorant to the fact that this has been an issue way more then 6 months to a year ago both in Canada and The US. Its been an issue for decades really but with other breeds.

I am certainly offended and will not be buying anything from them. We can sit here and argue about dog agression and human agression till were red in the face it does not change the fact that Pit bull owners are constantly being singled out. What happened to ban the deed and not the breed???
I really do get the fact that these dogs are bred to be and I say bred to be because it doesn't mean they are or ever will be dog aggressive. I know my dog can be that is why if I ever need a day care I would have to find one that would accomadate mine and my dogs needs which means a place where dogs can be seperated but still ge the attention he needs. But I want to be the one to make that choice just like the chow, akita JRT owner can. This can and is causing a real problem for public perception. Just a few weeks ago I thing worthington of the sun did an article basically referring to pit bull owners having kids and putting there kids in danger. Meanwhile in the pit bull breed profile it says they are great with kids and in the JRT which he mentions is his wonderful dog they are said to be bad with children. It only adds to peoples misconceptions and rather fuels them when they see a policy such as this.

I know some pit bulls that are great with all dogs and I have met more of them who aren't but they were all responsible owners and could judge for themselves. Just like people who say that there are alot of irresponsible pit owners and there are... but of all breeds including ones that are dog aggressive so really what is this policy saying?? Personally you couldn't pay me to drop my dog off there but in the same breath I should have the option and they should accomadate.
Do you not wonder what happens to all the other dogs that suddenly appear dog aggressive under their care, obviously they are not prepared or do they have a policy in place it seems to deal with such things yet they add unspayed females to the mix.

mastifflover
June 21st, 2006, 11:07 AM
Excellent post Luvmypit and I agree with you. I have never been a fan of Petsmart anyhow but now I will not shop there. I do not agree that bully breeds should be banned. I think it is up to individual owners to know if there dog is aggressive no matter what breed. You should be the one making the decision, I personally do not think if I owned a pit or staff I would put them in day care to risky. There are other dogs that could get aggressive with them and they are just to strong for there own good when it comes to defending themselves and I would not put my dog at risk of being the one being blamed and we all know that is how it would play out. I know what you go through I do but not on the same scale because owning a giant breed which we all know are vicious just because of there size and in Buds case a brindle coat for some reason that also makes him look mean. You are blamed for anything that goes wrong in the dog park so I avoid them. The only time we go is if there are are a lot of big dogs. We can all commiserate about how nobody plays with the big kids. But this is similar to racial profiling, each dog is individual. Besides what is with allowing unspayed females now there is aggression with other dogs waiting to happen