My dog was killed on a walk with a walker ordered through Wag

True; nevertheless: good engineering practice dictates that you design a product, service or component in a way that it gracefully fails.

A good example is the regulator for scuba diving (the thing that enables you to breathe and which contains the main valve, through which you breathe and the second stage, referred to as octopus, which is conneted to the bottle and the gauges). Any of those components could fail. The device, however, is designed in a way that if this happens it fails "safely" meaning that it's almost not possible that air flow is completely blocked, but that it flows unrestricted. Meaning you can still breathe, alas for a short time since the bottle empties rapidly and the flow is unrestricted.

This gives you a fighting chance and a way out by signalling the distress to your buddy so you can safely mount to the surface using techniques such as buddy breathing. Training for such emergencies is arguably the most important part of scuba diving training. There's still the possibilty that the thing blocks completely, but that's extremely rare and the base design of this equipment part is done in a way to minimize this possibility. [1]

Another example is a dead man's switch [2]. You don't anticipate that a train conductor is rendered incommunicado by, say, a heart attack. But this fail safe mechanism is nevertheless there in the extremely rare case when it happens. If the switch is not engaged, when it signals the conductor the train is stopped automatically.

I think that when you create something like a dog walking service it's almost rekless not to design your process flows with the consideration that an accident may happen and how to handle it. The question is not if, but when.

Wag's panic mode and the waving around of NDAs signals quite loudly that they obviously never thought about it and thus cannot be trusted to care for your animal. And this is actually the most charitable assessment of how they handled this disaster.

Chances that one of your consignees is hurt or killed are probably much greater than that your regulator malfunctions or that a train conductor is suddenly dropping dead

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_regulator#Malfunctions_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_man%27s_switch

I disagree with that notion. Trust has always been a big problem. But when a two way market is built on a platform you trust the platform to carry out it's due diligence on your behalf. Situations like:

The walker that was with Winnie when she was killed had a different name in her bio paragraph than was shown on her profile—which makes me wonder if Wag is monitoring whether or not the people walking your dog are who they say they are. Sara asked the walker what her name was, but the walker did not provide an answer.

shouldn't happen at all.

But it's seems that most of the time platforms forgo the need for verification and think trust should solve itself because "people". It takes a harassment case (in case of Uber) etc for companies to open their eyes and realize "people" are not so simple. It takes a good and concentrated effort to run a clean platform.

You can find tons of complains about the quality of Amazon products. And now there is a need for external tools like fakespot.com to find fake reviews. It wouldn't have taken Amazon much to build a similar service.

The amazing thing about smaller markets like Wag and Rover is that even if there are negative reviews you are not going to find them. There will be tons of 4-5 rated walkers but you will be hard pressed to find people who are rated 2-3. The reason being that customers don't want 2-3 rated walkers and it is in the interest of the company to show all high rated walkers.

there should also be a certain barrier to entry so that e.g. people more likely to do something criminal or negligent instead won't get on the platform in the first place.

Without that sort of network, yeah, I don't understand owning a dog either.

In order: A bond isn't paying them. It would ideally go to a reputable third party. Anyone that works for uber paid a whole lot more for that car, sometimes specifically for the job.

Edit: Would the downvoter care to explain? I'm not even saying it's definitely a good idea, I'm just disagreeing with the particular arguments given.

I know that losing a pet hurts a lot more than losing a grandparent or aunt or uncle when they're not ever-present in your life. I have not lost parents yet, but at this remove in my life they are in many ways just people I used to know - my personality and values are quite different to them and I find it hard to empathize with their life choices. I think losing them would be similar to losing the little kitten I reared from a few weeks old. The actual relationship with my parents is mostly dead already, because it's been decades since we were close.

It's not about losing a human Vs losing an animal. It's about losing a relationship that is part of your daily life.

Now, the specifics - it seems to me the particular moral axiom in question here is that "human life is always worth more than non-human life". Others in this thread have pointed out that you can't use that to make statements about what sort of grief people ought to feel, and I would hope that whatever your moral framework, compassion for grieving humans (whatever their moral framework) should factor into it.

However, I also think it's worth tackling this particular moral axiom head-on. The value of a human life is not constant or consistent between people - your own family is worth more to you than a stanger's, and you even admit that a dog might warrant more grief than a terrible person, even if that terrible person is family. Well, the value of a canine life isn't constant either. If it's possible and justifiable to love a dog more than family because the family is bad, why shouldn't it be possible and justifiable to love a dog as much as family, because the dog is good? There's a continuum, not a hard cutoff of "humans > dogs". Even if you think the average human is worth more than the average dog, you shouldn't be surprised - or offended - by other people's bereavement.

(I'd like to add an argument-from-Hollywood: They even made a whole film about a man cutting a swathe through evil, violent mobsters in a righteous fury, because they killed his dog. They made a very similar film about a man doing this because evil, violent mobsters kidnapped his daughter. Clearly, the emotions are comparable, and according to hollywood dogs and family are both worth more than evil, violent, human mobsters).

I see this dichotomy quite a bit in the public discourse, regarding dogs especially, where 1/2 the world treats dogs as family and the other half thinks they are some play toy/object.

We have been living with wolves/dogs for a long time now, we're responsible for how they have evolved, and part of that is how they have evolved to bond with humans. It's not surprising to me that losing a dog feels like losing a child for some people.

My point is that grief is subjective - people spiral into depression over losing pets, while their parents can die without them batting an eye. Teenagers, with all the out of wack hormones can feel the same way over losing a girl/boyfriend.

When people say "I know what it is like because I lose my dog of 10 years when I was 13", they're telling you that they too have felt great despair, grief and sorrow. They know the feeling deep in their heart and they're expression sympathy. Instead being offended and being angry, let the sympathy help you.

yes, definitely. I think what you're doing - dismissing the pain of others - is cruel and completely lacks empathy. I'm sorry that life treated you in such a cruel way, yet it doesn't excuse your emotional cruelty toward others. Note: i did lost members of immediate and extended family, including my father and our cat, to cancer, so i know the pain.

Just step back and think what you're doing here - people from the original post are heartbroken by the tragic loss of their dog, and the commenters express their condolences and empathy toward the grieving family ... and here you rush in with your pain and start shouting that their pain is incomparable to yours. I only hope that your actions here make at least your pain easier even if just a bit, otherwise it is just senseless.

Our attachments are defined within us, and not by what we are attached to.

Losing a cousin is different to losing a father, which is different to losing a grandfather. And all that is completely different to losing a child, right? And everyone responds differently.

So you took offense because you decided he was comparing dogs with mothers. Certainly he was not; and that was not the point, after all.

Of course, saying "I know how you feel about your mother cos I lost my dog" is incredibly insensitive and stupid.

> you're going to claim that it is comparable to lose a human being that meant everything to you because an animal died

If that person was that important to you, of course it's not comparable. I don't think that's what the other comments were saying though.

I lost grandparents I was close with; one was after many years of several diseases fighting for the kill, death itself came as a mercy. I love my dog dearly, he's very old and his last breath is near and I get teary-eyed just from writing about it. And still, he's nothing compared to the loss of my grandmother. But that's me.

Suffering linked to attachment to something can be great, not matter the something. It's the attachment that matters, and it's not produced by the nature of the thing, but by the experience the person had of the thing.

It's created suffering anyway, so the amount you generate is up to you, and is not related to the loss.

What a weird thing to get worked up over.

Of course it's comparable. The result of comparison is what matters - and among those people who downvoted these two comments, there's not a single one who thinks that these two are equal. However, it's reasonable to assume that while they differ significantly, they're on the same order of magnitude - say, a tenfold difference.

The strength of the feeling might be different and vary depending on all sorts of things, but it's a similar feeling, it is claimed.

Morals only come into it when we have to choose which one dies: not relevant here.

Brené Brown on Empathy - The RSA https://youtube.com/watch?v=1Evwgu369Jw

That cat was there for me through some very hard times, in a way no human was. To me, that cat had more value than a lot of humans do. Humans are largely (but luckily not entirely) self absorbed in their own lives and their own problems, the cat was always ready and happy to be with me, no matter what. Obviously there are caring people in the world who go above and beyond for others, but there were few of them when I needed people, so to me, that cat was more important than most people, as she helped me when no person could and gave me the emotional support I needed. So of course losing her was just as painful as losing a person.

People seem mostly fine a week after losing their dog and once they get a new one it's like the old one never existed. Meanwhile in my family so many things have changed in ways that are hard to describe ever since my father passed away years ago, and one can still feel the repercussions.

> we just have a totally different set of moral axioms and are fundamentally incapable of seeing the world in the same way.

That set of moral axioms you hold was what allowed people - you spiritual ancestors, no doubt - to murder millions and millions of people of different skin color or believing in another god. It's what allowed people to abduct and enslave and murder whole populations for hundreds, thousands of years. The belief that "they are not people, they are beasts, so we can treat them like livestock" is what underlies nearly every atrocity ever committed by the "human beings" you hold so dear as a race.

Today, the set of humans seen as people expanded, which is a good thing. People seem to have learned that people everywhere are fundamentally the same: they feel joy, sadness, rage, love; they all bleed the same when hurt; they all live their lives enduring hardships and enjoying good things.

The thing is, all of that is also true for animals. They are capable of feeling joy and sadness, of getting depressed, of jealousy, of loyalty, of empathy, of fear and anger, of suffering. They cannot voice their opinions, but you know - there are disabled people who also cannot do this, due to disability or brain damage. Such humans are no worse as people than the others: their families love them, care for them, and grieve for them once they depart. Your "moral axioms" are then inconsistent: you should either promote all animals to human status or demote disabled people straight into gas chambers. Just so you know, we've already tried the latter, it wasn't great.

---

None of the above should be particularly controversial, these are the basics, so let me finish by citing a poem of Andrzej Bursa I quite like, which (roughly translated[1]), goes like this:

  Children are nicer than adults
  animals are nicer than kids

  you say that thinking this way
  I'll find that the dearest to me
  is paramecium caudatum[2]

  so what

  I prefer paramecium than you
  you son of a bitch

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium_caudatum

How about losing a child? Have you done that? Well, I find it offensive that you can say you experienced grief over the loss of your mother. Until you’ve lost a child you can’t say you know grief...

What a daft stance. Grief is grief. What someone feels is entirely subjective.

I think you might want to consider counselling, as you seem to be harbouring some real anger over what was presumably a long time ago. I know it’s not easy to deal with the untimely death of a parent - been there - but lashing out at others and holding your grief above theirs isn’t a healthy mechanism.

Obviously we don’t know in this instance but in most cases fault goes to the driver if the dog is on leash, and given that this dog did not belong to the owner I’d be surprised if it was off leash. It might have been a flexilead in which case the outcome might be different depending on jurisdiction and circumstance but in any case the owners are going to have a better time going after drivers.

Neither party in this case involved the authorities or contacted any of the affected parties. The walker was already doing something they might not want Wag knowing about (having a third party walk the dog). I don’t think you can make any conclusions there so I’ll stick with my “probably”.

My understand of civil liability would be whom ever caused the harm is responsible for the actual damages done, not simply some raw actuarial table, so if I have vet bills, actual hard costs, then whom ever caused those costs would be responsible for them.

I have a hard time believing any jurisdiction would simply toss those costs as unreasonable because the dog is only worth X by some subjective analysis of dog bluebook

I'm not aware of any laws protecting the dogs specifically other than general animal cruelty laws. But because they are very expensive to train (I know of a bomb dog that cost $30k+) you are facing felony property damage charges if you injure or disable them.

You should take a break.

Do you have any source on this? I'd be very surprised to hear that it was true.

TL;DR police looking for somebody went to the wrong address, shot the family dog because it "attacked" a police dog (which was "unharmed by the incident"), and casually told the owners on their way out the door that their dog had died.

Part of the reward is a reputable account as a saleable asset. It's just like selling a company or passing it on to your children. If Joe's Handmans or Joes' Dogwalkers no longer includes "Joe" that's not supposed to be a scary situation, its part and parcel of why people work for themselves.

Now if indies aren't really expected to have owners rights, then they ought to get employee protections.

Then in SF another dog walker got busted for driving around picking up all her dogs, but leaving them inside her dog walking van while she went shopping at the mall instead of walking the dogs.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Incident-with-Dog-Walk...

It's so hard to trust anyone to actually take care of your dog, why automatically dilute to a gig economy with no oversight where just get any rando with a record who can buy a fake Wag account on reddit for their burner phone.

This is why we bring our dog to a doggy daycare where we can watch him play on webcams all day. But even that's not 100% safe, the workers could be not watching, or whatever.

It's just like eldercare. If you want to be sure it's done properly you basically have to do it yourself.

> Do you walk my dog with other people's dogs?

>> No! Here at Wag!, your pup is our sole focus on each walk. We believe that each pup has different needs, and the best way to serve those needs is through a one-on-one experience. In the case that you have multiple dogs in your household, we will walk those pups together per your request.

So either that's a straight-up lie or you're confusing them with some other dog walking service.

Come on down to Miami, where it’s not unusual for the actual uber driver to be different than uber drivers profile.

You can’t really get more shady than exploiting undocumented immigrants who can’t get a DL, and having them illegally without a DL by driving under someone else’s uber account for a fraction.

I agree with your general point, but the vast majority of Uber drivers I've seen are worryingly dangerous drivers (even worse than most taxis). I would not be surprised if many are driving all day, and are exhausted while being in charge of another person's life.

The way I learned it is: Any statement of intent, no matter in which form, is creating a contract that you are bound to abide.

You sound like you would argue that it obviously was not a contract but a joke because 'why would a company pay something without getting anything in return'. But that would not hold. Companies spend a lot on customer relationship management. So the customer here could safely assume that the companies 'return' was a happier - in this case: less angry - customer.

Both of them required training and care beyond what most people are prepared to give.

I love my dogs, but if I could have avoided the training to get them to where they are now I would have.

Yet if we adopt another dog it'll likely be from a shelter or rescue.

He’s optimized for minimum anxiety, not time or distance. Your dog’s pathfinding is _excellent_.

Much like how if you expect a professional driver, you won't likely find one on Uber.

Though in any case, having the dog pull the dog walker down on the sidewalk doesn't help much when the dog ran out on the road in front of a bus.