Planting Dogs

[jdtesluk]

Here is a link to a little photo album I have pieced together over the last few years.
Some of these are older pics from my planting days which seem like half a century ago.
You may or may not see some familiar faces in here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22823308@N05/?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/22823308@N05/?

[dennairrek]

Cruising through your pics this morning put a smile on my face! Oh to be a dog, let alone a planting dog! So awesome. Love dogs they bring so much joy and entertainment to camp.

[Scooter]

For those of you who use facebook, this discussion is a fascinating study of the range of opinions about having dogs in a planting camp:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/5890968 ... 637127261/

[mwainwright]

I like dogs, mostly, but I do not believe they should be be allowed on job sites or in working vehicles. In fact, WCB states ( reg. 17.7) that animals may not ride in the passenger compartment of a vehicle unless there is a special compartment designed to secure them. I wonder how long it will be before there is an accident and workers are denied coverage because of this? Personally I hope the days of dogs on the block are numbered.

[mwainwright]

I don't use facebook anymore, so I figured I'd try and start this discussion here and se what happens

[jdtesluk]

I like dogs, mostly, but I do not believe they should be be allowed on job sites or in working vehicles. In fact, WCB states ( reg. 17.7) that animals may not ride in the passenger compartment of a vehicle unless there is a special compartment designed to secure them. I wonder how long it will be before there is an accident and workers are denied coverage because of this? Personally I hope the days of dogs on the block are numbered.

Not accurate. The regulation states "facilities" must be provided, NOT a special compartment. The guidelines clearly state that appropriate facilities include "a secured cage, a seat belt designed for animal restraint, or a barrier screen."

Second, a worker will never be "denied coverage" due to some lapse in regulation. This is one of those industry myths, like being denied coverage if you slip and you're not wearing caulks. Responsibility does not simply default to the worker. The employer has layers of responsibility that include inspections, training, monitoring, and correcting conditions, along with understanding and enforcing regulations and guidelines.

As for dogs, I love them too, and have seen good examples and bad examples of animals at work. For people that work in isolation, particularly checkers, surveyors, and forepersons/supervisors, I think dogs can be a critical source of protection. I have two friends whose lives were saved by their dogs in such conditions. . Dogs can also help secure camps from animals. They can help control not only large animals, but also little ones. Dogs make good ratters! There are psychological benefits for the owners, and those that love dogs. However, these need to be balanced against ensuring the dogs do not place stress on others. That means cleaning up, keeping them out of common areas, leashing at times, and yes, securing them inside vehicles.

I argue that comes down to the company taking the time an effort to implement good dog policies, and consistently enforce them. I see fewer dogs than before, but much of this has to do with companies implementing some type of policy that prevents everyone (and their dog) from showing up (pun intended). Some have limits on the numbers they accept. Some vet the dog carefully (no pun intended), to ensure it is a Lassie and not a Cujo. Some are simply very fast to send the dog and dog-owner packing if there is a problem.

[Scooter]

The guidelines clearly state that appropriate facilities include "a secured cage, a seat belt designed for animal restraint, or a barrier screen."

This is interesting because several years ago, a WorkSafe officer told me that it needed to be some sort of kennel, either in the back of the truck or in the seating area, and the kennel needed to be secured into whatever part of the truck it was located in. I'm sure that different WorkSafe officers have different interpretations, but this one was inspecting camps, so I felt that taking his interpretation as being accurate would be reasonable.

I'm not a fan of the idea of a kennel in the back of the truck, because often, that space is needed for carrying trees, or carrying an ATV. If the truck is an open-back truck with tidy tank for fuel, it is much less likely to be needed to carry trees, but I think it would be extremely cruel to an animal to move it around in a kennel in a truck with a tidy tank. Remember, their noses are far more sensitive than ours.

With respect to riding in the cab, a small dog in a small kennel should be able to be strapped in and only take up one or two seats. Of course, sometimes, many companies want the ability to be able to carry a full load of people, and not lose seats to a dog. The seat belt harness seems like a better solution, if implemented properly.

Unfortunately, at some companies, it seems that dogs are allowed to just pile into the truck and lay down on peoples' laps. That seems pretty disrespectful towards the crew. Also, in the event of a rollover, the animal would become a projectile and a danger to the occupants.

[jdtesluk]

I'm going direct from the regulations. Any officer that says different is overstepping his or her authority, and imposing their personal views on the situation. The guidelines supersede any "interpretation".

Indeed, the idea of requiring kennels for all dogs means valuable cargo space committed to dog (or dogs). I've seen one company that does this for all dogs, and they take a very pro-dog approach. I think a kennel inside the truck makes zero sense. A hard kennel will undoubtedly do more damage than a dog. Really a dog is just cargo. Like any cargo it has to be secured. Your fire extinguisher is in a secure bracket. Backpacks and other gear are often kept underfoot. A dog simply needs to be effectively harnessed in accordance with guidelines. Where interpretation comes into play is with exactly how you do it. For example, a runty little Boston Terrier would probably be okay on leash looped through the seat frame, where as the same system for a St. Bernard may not be deemed acceptable. Indeed, nobody wants a 150 pound flailing wet dog smacking into them when you slam on the brakes.

[mwainwright]

Well thanks for clarifying Jordan, I appreciate your input as always. I had the same conversation with a former officer the other day, and I was told the same thing that scooter was.
I've never seen good dog policy implemented anywhere. Not in 16 seasons, or with about 15 different contractors. I feel like a lot of bullshit gets overlooked or rationalized simply because a large portion of our industry likes dogs and feels it's their right to have them in the workplace. If WCB guidelines don't address the rights of people who don't wish to have dogs present in the workplace, then that, in my opinion, is a glaring omission and needs to be changed.

[Scooter]

A video, from Celine Rytz's presentation at the WFCA Conference on Feb 1st, 2023.

www.replant.ca/dogs