Stupid people who complain about dogs just enjoying themselves.

peasant

Danes wrote:

Certain types of dog get enough bad press as it is so we have to be extra careful to present a positive image of them to the non-dog loving public.

bit of a theoretical question ...

What conveys a "better" image ...A "restricted" dog off the lead that comes when you call it, or a dog on a short lead with a muzzle?

It's the bloody muzzle that makes the dog instantly identifyable as "dangerous" ...even if it isn't ...and makes people even more afraid.

The dogs that really need to be muzzled never are anyway, because their owners couldn't give a toss.

fits

Danes wrote:

Thats not strictly true. As someone else pointed out, Dobermans are listed under restricted breeds and by law MUST be leashed and muzzled while in a public place. QUOTE]

I'm afraid that I personally think the restricted breeds laws in Ireland are complete and utter bullsh1t....

These dogs were under control, and thats all that matters to me.

Jimkel

We all know that some of the most vicious dogs are the smaller terrier type dogs and dogs belonging to the "toy" dog group. Im a dog lover but I have an intense dislike of cranky little dogs. When I was younger my nan used to have a German Sheperd/Great dane Cross, The biggest dog I have ever seen! whereass small dogs tend to bring home twigs, sticks, and other small items it found. this dog used to bring home everything from Push Bike frames to car tyres in its mouth! Never harmed a soul, never muzzled, never trained, roamed freely around coolock minding its own business and was much loved by the whole neighbourhood. now a days usually the only dogs I see unleashed are little muts snarling at me when I walk by their garden, or chasing my bike. All the big dogs I see are muzzled and on a lease, well behaved and controled. While the snarling little muts are free to nip and annoy anyone they choose, Because they are usually thought of as "little angels" by there owner. Litttle Feckers in my book.

Not all small dogs are like this I know.Most are kept indoors and well trained. but in my opinion they're far worse then the big dogs , And if your gonna be weary of any dogs, it should be the little toy dogs. Sure they cant do as much damage as a doberman, but they can make it up in small amounts.)

stovelid

Alfasudcrazy wrote:

Just back from walking the dobies along their favourite riverbank. My dogs take no interest in other people unless they also are walking a dog - obviously its the dog that interests them. Anyway I always put them back on the lead again when walking past people walking other dogs just in case. My dogs are by now well socialised with both people and other dogs - I am still working on cats. :rolleyes:

Today there was no other person around for miles ( the river bank is about three miles long) except this lady (not walking a dog) who when about 300 feet from my dogs stops and stands like a statue.
Naturally such strange behaviour interests the dogs who almost ask 'what's up with her' so just in case they run towards her I put them back on the leads.

So when walking past I get a big lecture about leaving dogs roam around, that it was 'so unfair' etc - even though they were on leads when walking past her.

Some people are such prudes - kinda spoiled my walk - most people compliment me on my dogs and admire the way they are so controllable by me. :rolleyes:

No offence but not everyone likes dogs. I like them just fine but am admittedly a bit nervous around large, unleashed dogs I don't know. This certainly doesn't make me stupid.

Danes

peasant wrote:

bit of a theoretical question ...

What conveys a "better" image ...A "restricted" dog off the lead that comes when you call it, or a dog on a short lead with a muzzle?

While I see your point, in my opinion, a large dog running loose is more frightening to a person not used to dogs than a leashed one. I do some transport for various rescues and I'm always happy to see Rotties, lurchers, GSDs and Greys but I'm wary of yorkies and westies. Most non-dog people would find this strange To many, big dog = dangerous dog.

Fits, whether we agree with the current laws or not, they exist. I believe that I can carry on a conversation on my hand held mobile phone while driving, no problem - the law says not so while I dont agree, I have to abide by it.

fits

Danes wrote:

Fits, whether we agree with the current laws or not, they exist. I believe that I can carry on a conversation on my hand held mobile phone while driving, no problem - the law says not so while I dont agree, I have to abide by it.

Well the dangerous dogs law is one law I'd have no problem in breaking, and I would do so if I owned one of the breeds on the list... provided it was well trained.

Attol

I think it's a touch unfair to say that little dogs are all snappy little things. I have a bichon who doesn't bark at all and who has never bitten anyone. He is very well trained and admittedly he did have a little aggression and used to bark when his brother was around but he would only bark when his brother started and they would only attack each other, never another dog or any person. Neither was neutered.

Our neighbour's westie on the other hand is a vicious little thing. She means it as playing but will bite you while doing it and she has sharp teeth. Kept trying to eat my trousers and my toes yesterday! It's just ridiculous to say that all little dogs are that way or all big dogs are another way.

My dogs are always on a lead when they go for walks. They're let out only in the garden to roam free or in an area where they can't run away or bump into other people. I think whether you have a big or small dog it is your responsibility to keep it away from harm, from harming others and to make sure to clean up after it. Anything else is just totally irresponsible imo. Nobody can judge how the dog will react and I know that i get scared to death when I see two pitbulls running towards me (some neighbours where we used to live had them running around freely. Scared me to death when walking my dogs as these ones would jump all over you and you'd just get the owner laughing saying they're grand). You can't judge how a person will act by looking at them, nor a dog. People will be scared regardless so it's just fairer on everyone imo.

Gillie

fits wrote:

Well the dangerous dogs law is one law I'd have no problem in breaking, and I would do so if I owned one of the breeds on the list... provided it was well trained.

The training thing isn't the issue here fits.
I don't muzzle my GSD but I will put him on the lead if I need to.
He is well trained also but I feel its just good manners for me to put him on a lead if ppl/dogs are approaching!

macshadow

It's just struck me reading this thread, if i see a dog running towards me i would prefer to know what kind the owner is than what kind the dog is.:D

fits

Gillie wrote:

The training thing isn't the issue here fits.
I don't muzzle my GSD but I will put him on the lead if I need to.
He is well trained also but I feel its just good manners for me to put him on a lead if ppl/dogs are approaching!

Huh
I've said nothing to contradict that...
I've pointed out on this thread that I put mine on the lead when I see people approaching. The OP put his on the lead when he saw that lady... We're not disagreeing on anything thus far...

I do object to having to keep a dog on the lead all of the time just because some politician/civil servant decided that they're dangerous..... as long as they are well trained in recall and trustworthy and the situation is appropriate.

Glowing

fits wrote:

as long as they are well trained in recall and trustworthy and the situation is appropriate.

These are the key words here ... hardly anyone these days know how to train their dog, or care whether or not the 'situation is appropriate'. Thats what bugs me - there are a lot of muppet dog owners out there who are more interested in dressing it up in cute coats rather than spending some time training it.

On another point, can you ever consider a dog 'trustworthy'?

fits

Glowing wrote:

On another point, can you ever consider a dog 'trustworthy'?

I thought about that while writing... and was toying with 'fairly trustworthy', 'reasonably trustworthy', '99% trustworthy'... Just left it at trustworthy in the end...:D

Gillie

fits wrote:

Huh
I've said nothing to contradict that...
I've pointed out on this thread that I put mine on the lead when I see people approaching. The OP put his on the lead when he saw that lady... We're not disagreeing on anything thus far...

I do object to having to keep a dog on the lead all of the time just because some politician/civil servant decided that they're dangerous..... as long as they are well trained in recall and trustworthy and the situation is appropriate.

Sorry fits. Misread!
We're on the same page so;)

Gillie

Glowing wrote:

These are the key words here ... hardly anyone these days know how to train their dog, or care whether or not the 'situation is appropriate'. Thats what bugs me - there are a lot of muppet dog owners out there who are more interested in dressing it up in cute coats rather than spending some time training it.

Training a dog is unbelievably simple once it is done at the right age!

The follow up work is most important.
In particular how you respond if the dogs ignores a command/shíts in the house/chews the leg off the table etc.
I think that's where most ppl fall down!

Jotter

I was talking to someone about the dangerous dog list recently and apparantly its based on how much damage the dog would do if it attacked. Not sure how true this is or how they weigh up what the outcome of the attack would be, I dont think the dangerous dog list is of any use, although the only one I would agree with is the pitbull, they scare me to death particularly bec they attack silently - eg no warning snarl or growl, this comes from their fighting genes and that to me is just crazy scary. At least every other dog on the list will most likely give you some indication its p**sed off so you can try defuse the situation before it attacks.

Raam

I was out cycling the other day and a small dog (Jack Russell type, don't know the exact breed) ran out in front of me. It was pretty dangerous as there were cars passing me on my right and there was a junction right ahead of me. He has done this before (maybe 3 other times) so I was prepared for him and was able to stop safely, upon which he nipped me on the foot. He was in the company of a group of young lads, maybe 15 years old. So I told them to keep him on a leash as he is dangerous and if he chases me again I'll be reporting the incident to the dog wardens. They were quite understanding and told me that he was knocked over by a cyclist before and showed me his bad leg, so maybe thats why he chases me. (He doesn't seem to chase cars).

This dog probably isn't on the "dangerous dogs list", for want of a better name. My worry is that the next time I won't see him coming, or else some other cyclist will fall afoul of him and end up badly injured, or possibly the dog ends up dead. I don't want any of those things to happen.

What is the best course of action? Are dogs required to be leashed at all times or is it only certain breeds?

P

golden

King Raam wrote:

I was out cycling the other day and a small dog (Jack Russell type, don't know the exact breed) ran out in front of me. It was pretty dangerous as there were cars passing me on my right and there was a junction right ahead of me. He has done this before (maybe 3 other times) so I was prepared for him and was able to stop safely, upon which he nipped me on the foot. He was in the company of a group of young lads, maybe 15 years old. So I told them to keep him on a leash as he is dangerous and if he chases me again I'll be reporting the incident to the dog wardens. They were quite understanding and told me that he was knocked over by a cyclist before and showed me his bad leg, so maybe thats why he chases me. (He doesn't seem to chase cars).

This dog probably isn't on the "dangerous dogs list", for want of a better name. My worry is that the next time I won't see him coming, or else some other cyclist will fall afoul of him and end up badly injured, or possibly the dog ends up dead. I don't want any of those things to happen.

What is the best course of action? Are dogs required to be leashed at all times or is it only certain breeds?

P

All dogs no matter what breed are required to under the control, however only the stated breeds as mentioned on this thread are required to be on a lead. Having said that like other posters have said sometimes its the smaller dogs to be more carefull.

olaola

I have to say - I'm not afriad of any dog, just its owner.

When I see young fellas walking (straining on the leash) pitbull/german shepard
I am doubtful of their abilties to restrain their dog. They can barely train it to walk on the leash properly, let alone anything else.
You see some guys get these dogs as some bizarre status symbol, but don't have a clue how to train it properly. :mad:

Glowing

olaola wrote:

You see some guys get these dogs as some bizarre status symbol, but don't have a clue how to train it properly. :mad:

Did you not know? These guys are double-hard! :rolleyes:

GG66

I've had a GSD for 2 years, wonderful dog, intelligent, loyal and friendly.

We live in the country with a big garden, my wife and I work from home so he had plenty of space and company.

Any time he was taken for a walk he was leashed, we became aware of other peoples fears of large dogs as irrational as they seemed. He was obedience trained and all our friends and family loved him. Visitors to the house were impressed by how friendly he was.

I can repeat similar stories as those others have relayed, small dogs always attacking him on the beach when he's on a lead, people crossing the street when they see me walking him on a lead. I loathed the idea of muzzling hime because of others fears. We did put in a 40 sq mtr dog run for times when he was unattended.

One particular neighbour were set against him from the beginning, in fact the first time they spoke to me after we moved here was about my Dog, how big they are etc. (FEAR) he was a 2 months old pup.

Our dog never warmed to them (I can see why). We got increasingly irritated by their complaints that he barked as they went by the house (their dog barks when I go into my back garden, he's 100 mtrs away).

They always responded to his bark with provocation, rattling the gate or trying to rise him, yet they claimed to be afraid of him.

On Saturday, I was putting him into the car to take him for a swim when the neighbour came up the road, the gate was open and he trotted towards her, she freaked out and started screaming, dog started barking. It all happened within seconds. The end results is that she claims he bit her. I didn't see it form 10 ft away but the Gardai (yes they called them) says they witnessed a dog bite.

Bottom line is the dog has to go!

I thought my dog would never bite, he has a wonderful temperment but he had been provoked over time. In hindsight I've thought, if only I had a muzzle on him or had the lead on him.

Truth is it happened so fast there was probably nothing I could do.

I agree that the first poster took the necessary steps to control his dogs but what if someone had approached more suddenly.... The possibility is there that an altercation could arise as much to do with the persons reaction than the dogs.

Sometimes it's hard to take the step of muzzling your dog or putting him on a lead when you feel there's no-one around. Now that he has allegedly bitten someone I'm open to legal action and I've lost my dog....

Consider carefully which is the worst fate.

Peter Collins

Funny how all dog owners say "ah he won't touch ya" just before the mutt takes a bite out of yer kids leg, or worse.

GG66

Peter Collins wrote:

Funny how all dog owners say "ah he won't touch ya" just before the mutt takes a bite out of yer kids leg, or worse.

Odd sense of humour, I don't find it funny at all

Peter Collins

GG66 wrote:

Odd sense of humour, I don't find it funny at all

Funny as in strange, not humourous

My God man, get an education

Nala

GG66 wrote:

The end results is that she claims he bit her. I didn't see it form 10 ft away but the Gardai (yes they called them) says they witnessed a dog bite.

Bottom line is the dog has to go!

Did the guards actually see a bite on her? It could have been her own dog?

neacy69

Peter Collins wrote:

Funny how all dog owners say "ah he won't touch ya" just before the mutt takes a bite out of yer kids leg, or worse.

funny (strange not humorous- get an education man) how every thread about dogs on this forum are reduced to a "oh won't somebody please think of the children" type bullshít remark

2funki4wheelz

GG66 that's really awful.
I'd die if my dogs bit anyone but I'd be very annoyed if it was because of constant purposeful antagonism by the person who got bitten.
That person has acted irresponsibly, and if someone was actually afraid would they not run/walk away? They may have swatted at the dog or kicked or lashed out at it to to get away, hence the (possible) bite repsonse.

Would they have been vindictive (and foolish) enough to provoke the dog into a nip just to get it out of their estate?

Was it a serious bite? I don't know what way it works if they do, having to get put down etc.

golden

Sorry double post

golden

GG66 - Do the Guards not have to see evidence ie broken skin to say that it was a dog bitten and not go on hearsay?

GG66

Funny as in strange, not humourous My God man, get an education

Who's being rude? or are you just being funny?

Did the guards actually see a bite on her? It could have been her own dog?

Do the Guards not have to see evidence ie broken skin to say that it was a dog bitten and not go on hearsay?

Nala,golden, yes they confirmed a bite and a scratch from paw. It could have been her dog, but as these things run out it's the balance of probabilities that decide it. Two female garda came out and said "an altercation with my dog, bite mark the next day so 2+2=4" her words (ish). I got the what if it was a child remark...I love children but stick to the facts!

They may have swatted at the dog or kicked or lashed out at it to to get away, hence the (possible) bite repsonse.

2funki4wheelz, it was definetly the persons response that provoked the dogs reaction, but as far as the gardai are concerned she's entitled to react in any way she wants on a public road, albeit 3ft from our entrance.

Would they have been vindictive (and foolish) enough to provoke the dog into a nip just to get it out of their estate?

Well we live in the country and not sure that they would but if they did want the dog to bite then they went about it the right way..... Knowing the neighbours character I wouldn't be surprised if they accentuated any marks.

In any case, the wardens came to take the dog away. Apparently they observe it for a few days and then decide that if it's dangerous they put it down. I was fortunate that my parents can take the dog for a couple of weeks, he's stayed with them a lot before at weekends when I visit. Warden was satisfied with this. I'm trying to find a good home for him now and the response has been encouraging. I've been very up front with interested parties about the full situation.....

If anyone lives in the country with plenty of space, neighbours who like dogs, experience with large dogs etc. PM me..

Borderfox

Very sad GG66