Does something need to be done about dogs?

[SpellowHouse]

Yikes, I guess even though they're obliged to leash and muzzle in public there are still the poor kids who share a home with these dogs.

Granted the article doesn't confirm anything yet, still being assessed for dog of peace status.

The arguments are the same with almost anything that is dangerous. It comes down to "do you allow the public to have dangerous things or not"?
The simple fact is that people can and will argue until the sun goes down about how uneducated owners are, but that is not a solution.
These days, I feel intimidated by large dogs, and I don't think that is right. It is effectively allowing people to wander about with a loaded gun and it should be stopped. All aggressive breeds should be banned.

 

[200sols]

Had a plasterer round recently doing some work and he was a dog lover, chatting extensively about his dog, which turned out to be an XL bully.

Got all the usual, wouldn't hurt a fly, loves people, everyone comes up to stroke it when he's out etc and tbf he has done everything required, registered it and got exemption, spent a fortune on bespoke muzzles to find the best one for his dog. Then he comes out with that only he can put the muzzle on as his gf tried and it refused and growled/snapped at her, I just rolled my eyes.

Dogs of peace.

Honestly it's the same story with these dogs every time.

 

[Haggisman]

These days, I feel intimidated by large dogs, and I don't think that is right. It is effectively allowing people to wander about with a loaded gun and it should be stopped. All aggressive breeds should be banned.

Not all large dogs are aggressive, and not all aggressive dogs are large. I'd be more wary of a strange jack Russell approaching me than a greyhound for example - the former known to be snappy vicious little **** and the latter being very gentle and placid (unless you happen to be a small furry creature )

 

[chrcoluk]

If a dog jumps at you, even if it's not necessarily being aggressive, is it acceptable to punch the dog?

As a non dog owner and someone who is a bit nervous around dogs (got bit in the hand as a young child) I can't always tell.

I've had dogs jump up at me, the owners are like "don't worry he's only playing".

If I then punch it as hard as I can, then tell the owner "don't worry, I'm just playing" that's ok?

Seen on social media a dog owner post a video showing a delivery person kicking their dog that looked like it was going for him (my opinion on it going for him), the delivery driver defended himself kicking the dog. I think the video author was expecting him to be bashed, but the vast majority of comments defended him.

 

[SpellowHouse]

Not all large dogs are aggressive, and not all aggressive dogs are large. I'd be more wary of a strange jack Russell approaching me than a greyhound for example - the former known to be snappy vicious little **** and the latter being very gentle and placid (unless you happen to be a small furry creature )

I don't care. I have no idea whether a persons large dog is timid or not. To my mind the principle problem is size, because it limits the ability of humans to intervene if the dog attacks something.

But a simple solution to all of this would be to have all dogs muzzled when outdoors. Then we wouldn't have to ban anything.

 

[Haggisman]

I don't care. I have no idea whether a persons large dog is timid or not. To my mind the principle problem is size, because it limits the ability of humans to intervene if the dog attacks something.

But a simple solution to all of this would be to have all dogs muzzled when outdoors. Then we wouldn't have to ban anything.

No need to be muzzled* - any responsible dog owner will keep them on a lead when there's any chance of anyone else being around anyway


* for dogs which aren't dangerous

 

[ttaskmaster]

Then he comes out with that only he can put the muzzle on as his gf tried and it refused and growled/snapped at her, I just rolled my eyes.

Most dogs don't like someone they don't like/trust/know putting a muzzle on them... I imagine you'd be the same if I tried to put a ball-gag on you!

If a dog jumps at you, even if it's not necessarily being aggressive, is it acceptable to punch the dog?

If someone invades my personal space, even if they're not being aggressive, is it acceptable for me to just outright punch them?

If it was being aggressive then perhaps, but your personal fears over what is natural animal behaviour probably isn't justification for violence... and you stand a good chance of instigating violence in response, at which point it's your own stupid fault.
Yes, the owner should be keeping them in check, but accidents do happen and if there's no actual threat to you there's no justification in going all caveman in response.

The arguments are the same with almost anything that is dangerous. It comes down to "do you allow the public to have dangerous things or not"?

The question is how to create a public culture of responsibility so that they can be trusted with these things.
Otherwise you'll just go down a Dowie-hole and end up banning ANY thing that has ever been instrumental in killing or hurting a human.

These days, I feel intimidated by large dogs, and I don't think that is right. It is effectively allowing people to wander about with a loaded gun and it should be stopped. All aggressive breeds should be banned.

That's potentially every breed, then.
Most have some level of aggressive tendencies and/or aggressive purposes in their heritage.

I presume you also feel intimidated by other humans of various types?
Which of those are to be banned on the basis of their appearance? Trackie-wearers? Bearded men? Successful women?

 

[SpellowHouse]

No need to be muzzled* - any responsible dog owner will keep them on a lead when there's any chance of anyone else being around anyway


* for dogs which aren't dangerous

According to their owners, no dogs are dangerous. And that's kinda my point here. ALL dogs are dangerous given the wrong circumstances, so lets not argue about it, lets just muzzle them all. I mean why do owners have issue with this? It's for the dogs protection as well as the children. If dog owners were truly sensible, its something they would already do.

 

[SpellowHouse]

Most dogs don't like someone they don't like/trust/know putting a muzzle on them... I imagine you'd be the same if I tried to put a ball-gag on you!


If someone invades my personal space, even if they're not being aggressive, is it acceptable for me to just outright punch them?

If it was being aggressive then perhaps, but your personal fears over what is natural animal behaviour probably isn't justification for violence... and you stand a good chance of instigating violence in response, at which point it's your own stupid fault.
Yes, the owner should be keeping them in check, but accidents do happen and if there's no actual threat to you there's no justification in going all caveman in response.



The question is how to create a public culture of responsibility so that they can be trusted with these things.
Otherwise you'll just go down a Dowie-hole and end up banning ANY thing that has ever been instrumental in killing or hurting a human.


That's potentially every breed, then.
Most have some level of aggressive tendencies and/or aggressive purposes in their heritage.

I presume you also feel intimidated by other humans of various types?
Which of those are to be banned on the basis of their appearance? Trackie-wearers? Bearded men? Successful women?

You can not create a public culture of responsibility... that's just not a practical argument. Muzzling all dogs is. It's simple and 100% effective.

Ridiculing practical solutions is not in itself a solution. Is that all you have?

 

[Haggisman]

According to their owners, no dogs are dangerous. And that's kinda my point here. ALL dogs are dangerous given the wrong circumstances, so lets not argue about it, lets just muzzle them all. I mean why do owners have issue with this? It's for the dogs protection as well as the children. If dog owners were truly sensible, its something they would already do.

Literally EVERYTHING is dangerous given the wrong circumstances, but we don't ban screwdrivers, belts, paper, cars, or water...

What additional protection does muzzling a dog on a lead offer exactly? Muzzling all dogs is completely unnecessary. Just don't approach dogs if you're that scared of them

 

[Kelt]

Literally EVERYTHING is dangerous given the wrong circumstances, but we don't ban screwdrivers, belts, paper, cars, or water...

What additional protection does muzzling a dog on a lead offer exactly? Muzzling all dogs is completely unnecessary. Just don't approach dogs if you're that scared of them

I didn't approach the little ****** that bit me, IT approached me!

 

[Freakbro]

Most dogs don't like someone they don't like/trust/know putting a muzzle on them... I imagine you'd be the same if I tried to put a ball-gag on you!

Most dogs won't have the ability to tear your arm off either if they do object

 

[Thekwango]

What additional protection does muzzling a dog on a lead offer exactly?

stops the dog being a threat if it gets off the lead or is able to pull away from it's owner.

 

[Ayahuasca]

What additional protection does muzzling a dog on a lead offer exactly?

I'm certainly not of the opinion that all dogs should be muzzled, but there are countless examples of dogs on a lead that the walker still has hold of, biting other people or dogs. Especially with the introduction of those extendable leaders where the dog can be 5-10 metres away.

It seems pretty obvious in these cases what additional protection a muzzle would have provided, no? A lead isn't going to be of much use to most owners/dog-walkers, especially with larger/stronger breeds, unless they have the strength to pull the dog off (ooh-matron) using it. I see people on my walks every day where it looks more like the dog is walking them and dragging them along.

It's a pretty pointless debate, though, because it's never going to happen, and I wouldn't want it to.

 

[Haggisman]

stops the dog being a threat if it gets off the lead or is able to pull away from it's owner.

Again, that's the owner's failure for not having the lead on properly, or having a dog they are unable to control properly. If that's the case then yes - I'd agree having a muzzle is theoretically a good idea, but someone in that position is unlikely to follow the rules (or be able to fit the muzzle correctly/safely) anyway.

I'm certainly not of the opinion that all dogs should be muzzled, but there are countless examples of dogs on a lead that the walker still has hold of, biting other people or dogs. Especially with the introduction of those extendable leaders where the dog can be 5-10 metres away.

Again, a failure of the owner/handler for taking their dog too close to other people.

It seems pretty obvious in these cases what additional protection a muzzle would have provided, no? A lead isn't going to be of much use to most owners/dog-walkers, especially with larger/stronger breeds, unless they have the strength to pull the dog off (ooh-matron) using it. I see people on my walks every day where it looks more like the dog is walking them and dragging them along.

Another failure of the owner/handler for being unable to control their dog.


Those kind of people don't care about other people/are too stupid/arrogant to be sensible/responsible dog owners. Are they really going to pay attention when told to muzzle their dog?

 

[Thekwango]

Again, that's the owner's failure for not having the lead on properly, or having a dog they are unable to control properly. If that's the case then yes - I'd agree having a muzzle is theoretically a good idea, but someone in that position is unlikely to follow the rules (or be able to fit the muzzle correctly/safely) anyway.

plenty of folk out walking dogs on leads that are clearly too big and powerful for the people walking them. muzzle on all aggressive breeds solves a lot of the problems.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I'd agree having a muzzle is theoretically a good idea, but someone in that position is unlikely to follow the rules (or be able to fit the muzzle correctly/safely) anyway.

But that's the case with everything in life, where you have people who break the rule/law, even if the consequences are severe. That's a different argument.

 

[Haggisman]

But that's the case with everything in life, where you have people who break the rule/law, even if the consequences are severe. That's a different argument.

My point is that requiring a muzzle on all dogs doesn't solve a problem.

It makes life more difficult for responsible owners (e.g. the ones who actually listen) & more uncomfortable for their dogs (who would already have a muzzle on anyway if the owner thought there was any possibility of them being dangerous).

Meanwhile, Dean and Shazza happily wander along with their 14 dogs they've trained to kill, ignoring the requirement (and lets face it, the realistic chances of there being any consequences are negligible).

It would be as stupid an idea as the one which gets brought up periodically about getting rid of all pointed knives (clearly thought up by a rich politician who's clearly never had to cook a meal for themselves in their lives because their staff always do it for them). Make life more difficult for everyone who actually follows the law, while having literally zero effect on those who don't.

 

[Thekwango]

My point is that requiring a muzzle on all dogs doesn't solve a problem.

but it does, as has already been explained to you above a couple of times.

 

[Haggisman]

but it does, as has already been explained to you above a couple of times.

Only if people actually follow the requirement, as I've said above a couple of times.