[Gurgle]

Went to see a Sport and the back liftgate opening is only 28 inches high. Dog crate is 30 inches high. Not sure how low my Lab can scrunch himself even if I do find a lower crate. My cross country skiis might fit but the OH's 210s won't. It seemed very tight inside but it was dark so I'll look at another in daylight. It didn't help that the one lone little Cherokee was beside a row of Grand Cherokees which did indeed look grand as to size. One good thing, that back seat does fold almost flat, about as good as the Forester and the Escape. Better than the Grand C.

 

[merft]

Went to see a Sport and the back liftgate opening is only 28 inches high. Dog crate is 30 inches high. Not sure how low my Lab can scrunch himself even if I do find a lower crate. My cross country skiis might fit but the OH's 210s won't. It seemed very tight inside but it was dark so I'll look at another in daylight. It didn't help that the one lone little Cherokee was beside a row of Grand Cherokees which did indeed look grand as to size. One good thing, that back seat does fold almost flat, about as good as the Forester and the Escape. Better than the Grand C.

I think you about right on the height. The Cherokee has one of the smaller cargo capacities of the class. For me, it's far more than I need, but I'm used to the cargo space in my TJ.

 

[JonJones]

You could probably just tip it on its side, slide it in, and then have your dog climb up into it.

 

[limey-g]

I think the problem here is not to compromise , if a new vehicle makes life a little more difficult then I cannot see how you will enjoy it.

 

[Gurgle]

You could probably just tip it on its side, slide it in, and then have your dog climb up into it.

I actually considered that idea since the crate is only 24 inches wide. But the height angled from corner to corner would be 38.5 inches and I don't think it would rotate. The Cherokee is higher inside once the opening is cleared but not that high, I don't think.

Dog height is measured at the withers, like a horse, and he is 23 inches. I never have measured how high he holds his head when standing.

Unfortunately I wouldn't mind a crate that's even bigger, not height wise, but wider so Mr. Muscles has more room to spread out if we are at a competition on a warm day and he has to be crated long times.

Will try to see a Cherokee in daylight today though. And, on second thought, it is flatter than the Forester which google images last night reveal a mid cargo area hump that I think I remember now. Also, this crate was purchased used for $50 20 years ago so I guess I can afford to buy one of the newer ones that folds up like a suitcase for easy carrying.

I looked at the Grand Cherokee last night too. My gosh, the best EPA mileage rating is now worse than on my 2003 JGC. Gas is only going to get more expensive, that's a consideration. And they are HUGE, way bigger than mine.

 

[JonJones]

I actually considered that idea since the crate is only 24 inches wide. But the height angled from corner to corner would be 38.5 inches and I don't think it would rotate. The Cherokee is higher inside once the opening is cleared but not that high, I don't think.

Dog height is measured at the withers, like a horse, and he is 23 inches. I never have measured how high he holds his head when standing.

Unfortunately I wouldn't mind a crate that's even bigger, not height wise, but wider so Mr. Muscles has more room to spread out if we are at a competition on a warm day and he has to be crated long times.

Will try to see a Cherokee in daylight today though. And, on second thought, it is flatter than the Forester which google images last night reveal a mid cargo area hump that I think I remember now. Also, this crate was purchased used for $50 20 years ago so I guess I can afford to buy one of the newer ones that folds up like a suitcase for easy carrying.

I looked at the Grand Cherokee last night too. My gosh, the best EPA mileage rating is now worse than on my 2003 JGC. Gas is only going to get more expensive, that's a consideration. And they are HUGE, way bigger than mine.

Well, you could just let your dog ride on the back seat like I do.

 

[Gurgle]

Well, you could just let your dog ride on the back seat like I do.

For some trips I do but I need the crate for trials. I can't trust him to stay in the car with all the windows completely down like I could the previous dog.

Have you seen the very scary reports on seatbelts for dogs? Apparently not only are they mostly no good at protecting the humans in the car, they might actually be worse for the dog.

http://centerforpetsafety.org/research/

 

[14KL]

I think a full grown lab would be too big for the Jeep accessory?

 

[Gurgle]

LOL, Maybe a Toller or Brittany would be comfortable in that. But I'm guessing as I don't know the dimensions. Plus, I do have a soft crate for some uses, but I find my dog gets hot in it. I prefer the openness of wire for air flow.

 

[Hudsonhawk]

Buy the wire screen that will allow you to separate the cargo area from the passenger area.

 

[WJM]

Another angle to consider, if you really want the Cherokee, is to get a customized dog enclosure. When I was younger my dad and I would fly our Malamute and he modified a stock create to fit our needs and made it quite cozy too. Lights, water, fan, panoramic window, etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JonJones]

For some trips I do but I need the crate for trials. I can't trust him to stay in the car with all the windows completely down like I could the previous dog.

Have you seen the very scary reports on seatbelts for dogs? Apparently not only are they mostly no good at protecting the humans in the car, they might actually be worse for the dog.

http://centerforpetsafety.org/research/

To be honest, I didn't even know they made seatbelts for dogs. I've never used those in my life.

Crazy that they have a 100% failure rate, though. Not an investment worth making.

 

[limey-g]

On the question of dog seat belts Subaru who are very safety conscience made a test rig like they do for human style dummies and checked out all the available seat belts for dogs.
They all failed to do the intended job but one, and they now have included that companies product in their accessories for the Subaru's vehicles.

 

[dan_public]

To be honest, I didn't even know they made seatbelts for dogs. I've never used those in my life.

Crazy that they have a 100% failure rate, though. Not an investment worth making.

One of the major problems we have with all sorts of internet information sources is that many (most?) contain misinformation, are taken out of context, partially quoted, or quoted using the title only.

The test in question was published under the title, "Tests On Dog Harnesses Show 100 Percent Failure Rate". When you read the article, you find...

“We tested them to the child safety restraint standard and we experienced a 100-percent failure rate to protect either the consumer or the dog,” said CPS founder and CEO Lindsey Wolko. “That is a very real concern for consumers.”

And...

But while injuries are much worse when drivers let their dogs roam free inside a vehicle, simply using a harness often isn’t enough. In some cases, they can be just as deadly.

“Something is better than nothing, but again, it is only going to be as good as the manufacturer, the fit and the user application of the product,” said Haddad.

One key phrase above is, "...protect either the consumer or the dog...". What does that mean? Does that mean the harness protected the dog in an accident but was damaged in the process? And therefore the consumer was "damaged" because they had to buy another one?

My takeaways from this:

1. Using a harness is better than NOT using a harness in a car. The chances of your dog being badly harmed are much higher without a harness.

2. There should be standards for harnesses to help rid the market of poor quality, useless products. Marketing people sell their product. They do NOT have consumers benefit in mind if it gets in the way of selling their product.

3. A harness does not do a lot of good unless it is fitted and used properly.

Most importantly, read entire articles to get the facts. Then cross-check the facts. Do NOT depend on titles - their purpose is to get attention and not represent facts.

Regards,

Dan.

p.s. I have two Poodles and always use harnesses when they are in the car. Always.

 

[Gurgle]

Thanks Limey. Last time I checked there was one better than the others but the name of it was not available at that time.

Buy the wire screen that will allow you to separate the cargo area from the passenger area.

Good idea Hudsonhawk but it won't protect (maybe keep is a better word) the dog from going out side or back windows. And it won't keep the dog in at a trial with the windows down. It will protect me when we are driving.

Another angle to consider, if you really want the Cherokee, is to get a customized dog enclosure. When I was younger my dad and I would fly our Malamute and he modified a stock create to fit our needs and made it quite cozy too. Lights, water, fan, panoramic window, etc.

Yes WJM, I've seen those. Used by the field trialers and the dog sledders. AC and a fan would be a must with those in hot weather. My field trainer made his own custom place for his dogs in back of his Explorer. Very neat. He just put wire crates in, but they were secured.

 

[JonJones]

One key phrase above is, "...protect either the consumer or the dog...". What does that mean? Does that mean the harness protected the dog in an accident but was damaged in the process? And therefore the consumer was "damaged" because they had to buy another one?

Thanks, but I did read it. You're just assuming I didn't, and you know what they say about that.

And no, that does not mean that the consumer was damaged by having to buy another one. It means that in 100% of the cases either the dog or the person was injured, even though the harness was used. Therefore, 100% failure rate.

Either the dog was hurt in the crash or the person was hurt by a flying dog, or, most likely, both.

On a positive note, at least your three takeaways are correct.

 

[dan_public]

Thanks, but I did read it. You're just assuming I didn't, and you know what they say about that.

And no, that does not mean that the consumer was damaged by having to buy another one. It means that in 100% of the cases either the dog or the person was injured, even though the harness was used. Therefore, 100% failure rate.

Either the dog was hurt in the crash or the person was hurt by a flying dog, or, most likely, both.

On a positive note, at least your three takeaways are correct.

First, my apologies... I glanced at the post and searched the web for the info. It was posted with the 100% failure rate title. I should have read the post more carefully and then read the original report as you did.

I agree with the study - it's purpose and conclusions. However...

My concern is and was that saying there is a 100% failure rate will be read by many people to mean: 1) That they are worthless and it's better to NOT use them and 2) that the 100% failure rate applied to ALL dogs. The study focused on large, 50-85lb dogs. It did not include testing with small dogs. And if there is a danger from a "flying dog" to humans when the harness failed, then imagine what it would be like if there were no harness to slow them down.

My wife and I have been using a dog harness for years. One time, I had to make an emergency stop to avoid hitting another car. The harness and the seat belt to which it was attached stretched, and our 17lb dog's body moved partially between the front seats before stopping him. He was shaken up a bit, but he was fine after a few minutes. If he had NOT been wearing the harness, he would have hit the front dash and been severely injured or killed.

I'm not arguing they the harnesses are completely safe. I'm pointing out that this is one study, under one set of conditions, and it focused on large dogs. There is not a 100% failure rate for all dogs under all conditions. If I'm mistaken, please post references.

Maintaining the safety of our puppies is critical. We absolutely should have standards for safety and the companies should be held accountable if they fail to meet them. That said, balancing the pluses and minuses of current safety harnesses, it's better to use a good safety harness than no harness (IMO).

Dan.

 

[JonJones]

First, my apologies... I glanced at the post and searched the web for the info. It was posted with the 100% failure rate title. I should have read the post more carefully and then read the original report as you did.

I agree with the study - it's purpose and conclusions. However...

My concern is and was that saying there is a 100% failure rate will be read by many people to mean: 1) That they are worthless and it's better to NOT use them and 2) that the 100% failure rate applied to ALL dogs. The study focused on large, 50-85lb dogs. It did not include testing with small dogs. And if there is a danger from a "flying dog" to humans when the harness failed, then imagine what it would be like if there were no harness to slow them down.

My wife and I have been using a dog harness for years. One time, I had to make an emergency stop to avoid hitting another car. The harness and the seat belt to which it was attached stretched, and our 17lb dog's body moved partially between the front seats before stopping him. He was shaken up a bit, but he was fine after a few minutes. If he had NOT been wearing the harness, he would have hit the front dash and been severely injured or killed.

I'm not arguing they the harnesses are completely safe. I'm pointing out that this is one study, under one set of conditions, and it focused on large dogs. There is not a 100% failure rate for all dogs under all conditions. If I'm mistaken, please post references.

Maintaining the safety of our puppies is critical. We absolutely should have standards for safety and the companies should be held accountable if they fail to meet them. That said, balancing the pluses and minuses of current safety harnesses, it's better to use a good safety harness than no harness (IMO).

Dan.

Nope, I don't think you're mistaken at all. And I agree that there should be safety standards. Perhaps this study is one step toward that?

 

[JIruns]

I have a Weimaraner / Rotweiler mix puppy- 7 1/2 months...she had plenty of room in the back of my Element (especially with seat flipped up); she seems to be fine so far in the Trailhawk...when fully grown, we might have an issue

 

[dawhitesTH]

Storage space for my dogs are one of the deciding factors. I have a 3yr old 45lbs pitbull and a 6 months 10lbs mini aussie mix.

So far, they have plenty of room to spare w/out their kennel, however, if i'm planning to go on long trips i'll consider a roof rack for more storage since i will be purchasing a kennel that will take up most of the cargo space.