Aggressive alsation

lurchin along

Freddie59 wrote: »

For God's sake man. What planet are you on? Ignorance of the gen pop. Yeah.:rolleyes: Ignorance alright, but not of the gen pop.;)

I was referring to the person who was afraid her child would be mauled by a sheep.
If you don't think THAT reveals ignorance - well -shall we worry about you?

lurchin along

Why does defending the dog mean that it (the dog) is being put first?Although I would look at WHY the dog was showing such dangerous aggression and attempt to teach the victims of that aggression (assuming they survived) how to avoid such instances in the future I would also not be seen for dust in my speed getting the dog with human blood on its jaws to the vet for its meeting with Jesus.

ztoical

Freddie59 wrote: »

Head in the sand my friend. Ignore the problem and it will go away. How childish. The only ones I 'claimed' (as YOU put it) that were 'anti-human/pro-dog' (your phraseology again) are those - like you - who are trying, in some way, to rationalise the deaths of two innocent children as being someway dismissible (even though you don't realise it) because you feel the 'poor dog' has - by some twisted logic - been put in a position where he had no other option.

These beasts, Rottweilers, Alsatians, et al have no place in a modern, densely packed housing development populated by a large amount of children.

And regarding my posting in the Animals & Pet Forum - so what? Are we not to dare to voice an opinion that appears 'anti-dog/pet/whatever'? Especially when two children have been mauled to death by these so-called 'pets'? That's called censorship, and, should this be practiced, then it's a sad day for society in general.

Much noise is made of the fact that 'animals do not have a voice'. Neither do some children. You'd do well to remember it.

Yawn :rolleyes:

Freddie59

peasant wrote: »

Freddy, "my friend" ...other than your "humans first" mantra, do you actually have a proposal?

Like ban/kill all dogs? Only certain dogs? All dogs in certain areas? Certain dogs in certain areas?

Or what?

Your repetitive ranting is getting very tiresome ...post something other than polemics for a change ...like a constructive idea of what you think should be done and how.


And then you still owe me an answer as to what dogs those are that you claim to care for occasionally ...please elaborate as to kind of dog and care arrangements, specifying your particular living arrangements (estate or not) as well please


or else ...just shut up

My 'repetitive ranting' is no worse than your 'dog is alway 100% right; head up your own ass' rants. I care for two small breeds and yes, we live in an estate. Fortunately, unlike some, I am not a complete buffoon when it comes to caring for these animals. And it shows in their behaviour. It is not rocket science.

Some people should try it sometime.

I have seen - several times in recent weeks - what can only be described as a moron walking FIVE Rottweilers - unmuzzled - with all leads held with one hand. Great plan.:rolleyes: Says it all really.

And maybe, just maybe, before you ask people to 'shut up':rolleyes: you might bring something constructive to the debate yourself.;)

Regards what should be done?

1. Limit the sizes of dogs allowed in housing estates.

2. Limit the number of dogs allowed.

3. Make the owners control them at all times, including barking, muzzling, etc.

4. There is an onus also on the owners themselves to behave in a normal fashion. The 'little man with the big dog' attitude is still very prevalent in Ireland.

5. Finally, recognise dogs for what they are. Pets. Deserving of proper treatment by loving and caring owners. Not an accessory as some obviously view them. And never, ever put them before humans - especially defenceless children.

Freddie59

lurchin along wrote: »

Why does defending the dog mean that it (the dog) is being put first?Although I would look at WHY the dog was showing such dangerous aggression and attempt to teach the victims of that aggression (assuming they survived) how to avoid such instances in the future I would also not be seen for dust in my speed getting the dog with human blood on its jaws to the vet for its meeting with Jesus.

Yes, you're probably right. I'd say that six week-old baby was taunting it from its cot.:rolleyes:

lurchin along

That baby was left in the care of a child not old enough to be responsible for it and not old enough itself to be alone with ANY large dog.
My word this is an unpleasant tone you are taking.
I doubt you are making too many fans on this board.
Were you not loved enough as a child?
Or are you still a child?One of those spotty teenagers perhaps whose hormones are making them hate the world.
Never mind dear,you'll grow up in time.

peasant

Freddie59 wrote: »

Regards what should be done?

1. Limit the sizes of dogs allowed in housing estates.

2. Limit the number of dogs allowed.

3. Make the owners control them at all times, including barking, muzzling, etc.

4. There is an onus also on the owners themselves to behave in a normal fashion. The 'little man with the big dog' attitude is still very prevalent in Ireland.

5. Finally, recognise dogs for what they are. Pets. Deserving of proper treatment by loving and caring owners. Not an accessory as some obviously view them. And never, ever put them before humans - especially defenceless children.

1. By what criteria? length, height, weight?
You do realise that favourite family dogs like Golden Retrievers or Labradors easily equal or outgrow so called "dangerous" breeds in size/weight?

2. I agree to a point. More than 2-3 dogs per household (in a non-rural environement) is probably too much

3. limit barking how? x amount of "woofs" a day? only at certain times?
There already are nuisance laws
As for muzzles: Do you know that muzzle makes dogs more agressive among each other? The muzzle hides facial expressions, making it difficult for dogs to "read" on another and therefore preventing proper inter-doggy socialisation.
A muzzle is a bad compromise and I wouldn't recommend it for all dogs

4. And who decides what exactly is "normal" ? ...you, the "little man with the big agenda"?

5. Dogs are animals who by law should have certain animal rights. Sadly Irelands laws are terribly deficient on this topic.
If there were proper animal rights legislation, it would give the authorities the power to remove dogs from unsuitable owners.

How about you put your energy into campaining for that?

kerrysgold

I think it's a bit hypocritical of you going on how dog's shouldn't be allowed on estates when you live on an estate yourself and keep dogs! or are you an exception to the rule? and as for the person walking the 5 rotties, yes he was breaking the law by not having them muzzled, but IMO a dog that isn't a danger to the public when out on walks (i.e. doesn't go to bite people walking past/attack other dog's out walking) then why should they wear a muzzle? that's like saying a certain type of person should only be allowed out wearing handcuffs. And as for the person walking 5 of them together, if they were all well trained to walk on the lead, it would be easy enough to walk 5 together. You often see people walking 5 or more greyhounds, yes, they are much lighter than rotties, but they walk on a slack lead, so are easy to walk, so with dogs that walk calmly and don't pull, you can easily walk several together.

Freddie59

kerrysgold wrote: »

I think it's a bit hypocritical of you going on how dog's shouldn't be allowed on estates when you live on an estate yourself and keep dogs! or are you an exception to the rule? and as for the person walking the 5 rotties, yes he was breaking the law by not having them muzzled, but IMO a dog that isn't a danger to the public when out on walks (i.e. doesn't go to bite people walking past/attack other dog's out walking) then why should they wear a muzzle? that's like saying a certain type of person should only be allowed out wearing handcuffs. And as for the person walking 5 of them together, if they were all well trained to walk on the lead, it would be easy enough to walk 5 together. You often see people walking 5 or more greyhounds, yes, they are much lighter than rotties, but they walk on a slack lead, so are easy to walk, so with dogs that walk calmly and don't pull, you can easily walk several together.

Yes, of course 5 Rottweilers (approximately 70 stone in weight) are easily controlled by one person if they decide to let rip - unmuzzled.:rolleyes: You've just validated my argument.

Freddie59

peasant wrote: »

1. By what criteria? length, height, weight?
You do realise that favourite family dogs like Golden Retrievers or Labradors easily equal or outgrow so called "dangerous" breeds in size/weight?

2. I agree to a point. More than 2-3 dogs per household (in a non-rural environement) is probably too much

3. limit barking how? x amount of "woofs" a day? only at certain times?
There already are nuisance laws
As for muzzles: Do you know that muzzle makes dogs more agressive among each other? The muzzle hides facial expressions, making it difficult for dogs to "read" on another and therefore preventing proper inter-doggy socialisation.
A muzzle is a bad compromise and I wouldn't recommend it for all dogs

4. And who decides what exactly is "normal" ? ...you, the "little man with the big agenda"?

5. Dogs are animals who by law should have certain animal rights. Sadly Irelands laws are terribly deficient on this topic.
If there were proper animal rights legislation, it would give the authorities the power to remove dogs from unsuitable owners.

How about you put your energy into campaining for that?

Ah, we must have touched a nerve with the 'little man with the big dog' attitude.:p

Easy way of reducing the barking - anti-bark collars. Or do you believe dogs have the right to bark 24/7, without regards to people's sleep patterns?

Society decides what is normal. And some of the opinions expressed by dog owners on this thread are far from normal.

My energy (or concern) is that adults (allegedly) are giving dogs (pets) a higher priority than humans. For some insane reason.

peasant

Freddie59 wrote: »

Ah, we must have touched a nerve with the 'little man with the big dog' attitude.:p

nope ..I'm 6' 2" and all my dogs are cudelly

Easy way of reducing the barking - anti-bark collars. Or do you believe dogs have the right to bark 24/7, without regards to people's sleep patterns?

oh yeah ...anti bark collars ...with a remote control for everyone in the neighbourhood :rolleyes:

Society decides what is normal. And some of the opinions expressed by dog owners on this thread are far from normal.

My energy (or concern) is that adults (allegedly) are giving dogs (pets) a higher priority than humans. For some insane reason.

As for the rest ...I give up

kerrysgold

''let rip'' what do you mean by that? that the dog's are going to suddenly turn vicious and go after something?

as for the anti-bark collars, do you realise how cruel these are? would you like to be shocked everytime you spoke? but then again that may not be such a bad idea.....and typed.....

The root of the problem has to be found i.e. why is the dog barking? rather than a ''quick fix'' and CRUEL ''solution''

fits

Freddie59 wrote: »

Ah, we must have touched a nerve with the 'little man with the big dog' attitude.:p

:D You've obviously never met Peasant so.

My energy (or concern) is that adults (allegedly) are giving dogs (pets) a higher priority than humans. For some insane reason.

I would have to disagree. Questioning why a dog behaves in a certain way,and how it could have been prevented, is not putting dogs before humans.

Morganna

never ever stare at a dog or look a strange dog in the eye you are challenging him.I would approach the owners .Gsds are guard dogs and the dog is doing his job as in protecting his property .But i think at 6mnths he shouldnt be that bad i think he needs trainingand socializing .:cool:

Freddie59

Morganna wrote: »

never ever stare at a dog or look a strange dog in the eye you are challenging him.I would approach the owners .Gsds are guard dogs and the dog is doing his job as in protecting his property .But i think at 6mnths he shouldnt be that bad i think he needs trainingand socializing .:cool:

We've been over this Guards don't want to know. Protecting his property....and terrorising people into the process.

lightening

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes, of course 5 Rottweilers (approximately 70 stone in weight)

:rolleyes: Tell whoever it is you know that has 5 Rottweilers to ease them off the cakes.

Or is your nose getting longer?

They weigh about 7 stone each. Half the drama.

daveharnett

Wow, just checked up on this thread after forgetting about it for a bit.
Ok, perhaps mentioning children wasn't the best way to move the discussion along. I just wanted people to consider the argument from another point of view.

I'd like to mention the post that brought it up:

lurchin along wrote: »

There was an incident in the UK some years ago this reminds me of.A labrador that was behing an 8' diamond mesh fence was in the habit of barking at passersby.It was ordered to be PTS by the court(under the DDA)because people FELT threatened by the dogs behaviour.It didn't matter that the dog couldn't possibly hurt anyone as it was safely contained,the dog died.

I made an unspoken assumption in my original post: When the OP said that "people felt threatened by the dog's behaviour", I assumed he meant "several reasonable people".

If this was just the opinion of one hysteric crackpot, or some nasty kids who baited him, then the judge overreacted. I like dogs too.

If however, several reasonable people felt the dog was threatning, then i'd say the dog's behaviour has no place in a residential environment. That would not be the dog's fault by any means - the owner should not allow his/her dogs to threaten the neighbors.

In an unprecidented move, I will change my mind on an internet forum. I withdraw my earlier support for having the dog summarily put down. The owner could have been given a chance to take remidial action. The dog could have been given a chance in a more suitable environment, or with a more considerate owner. Putting the dog to death should have been the last resort, when the owner is primarily responsible for the dog's behaviour.

Ok, hands up who feels this is still an unreasonable position.

kerrysgold

I still think that putting a dog down for barking at people when it was behind an 8' fence, was an absolutly ridiculous decision. Maybe the judge disliked dogs?

~Thalia~

Freddie59 wrote: »

We've been over this Guards don't want to know. Protecting his property....and terrorising people into the process.

Jesus you are like a dog with a bone

You still haven't mentioned what breed of dog it is you care for...is it a secret?

kerrysgold

Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but if I walk past a property with a dog *inside* a secure fence, even if it acting ''viciously'' it doesn't bother me in the slightest since it obviously can't get over the fence to carry out it's threats!

ztoical

Freddie59 wrote: »

We've been over this Guards don't want to know. Protecting his property....and terrorising people into the process.

well the big prob on my estate is def not dogs but the little boy racers flying around the place at 3am nearly ever bloody night. The eurospar up the road has blocked off over half it car park cus thats were the little feckers like to race each other. Now they zoom around housing estate and rev their engines at all hours. And I've complained to the guards and you know what? they didn't give a ****. Maybe the issue here is the guards and not the dogs.

Freddie59

~Thalia~ wrote: »

Jesus you are like a dog with a bone

You still haven't mentioned what breed of dog it is you care for...is it a secret?

Sorry. Forgot about that. Two breeds. A Yorkie and a Cocker Spaniel. Two of the best behaved dogs you could meet. A joy to look after.

Just for the record, it's not my intention to fall out with dog owners or lovers. I just become incensed at the mutilation of children and the irresponsibility of some dog owners. So apologies to anyone offended.:)

Freddie59

ztoical wrote: »

well the big prob on my estate is def not dogs but the little boy racers flying around the place at 3am nearly ever bloody night. The eurospar up the road has blocked off over half it car park cus thats were the little feckers like to race each other. Now they zoom around housing estate and rev their engines at all hours. And I've complained to the guards and you know what? they didn't give a ****. Maybe the issue here is the guards and not the dogs.

Same where I live.

kerrysgold

Well, statistically Cocker spaniels are supposed to be the biggest biters, but nobody is calling for them to be banned because obviously not all cockers are going to bite. same for rotties etc. I think pit bulls are something like 10th on the list? after a bunch of well known family dogs! but saying this-breed-is-more-vicious-than-that-breed isn't helping any dog.

I agree about the ''boy racers'' though, they are such a nuisance, maybe if they banned the ''souping up'' of cars they wouldn't be such show off's driving around in a regular car! the guards don't seem to want to get involved with the "tough" people at all.

Freddie59

kerrysgold wrote: »

Well, statistically Cocker spaniels are supposed to be the biggest biters, but nobody is calling for them to be banned because obviously not all cockers are going to bite. same for rotties etc. I think pit bulls are something like 10th on the list? after a bunch of well known family dogs! but saying this-breed-is-more-vicious-than-that-breed isn't helping any dog.

In fairness, I can't remember seeing any reports of Cocker Spaniels mauling a child to death. They'd probably lick them to death if anything. Very placid.

peasant

Freddie59 wrote: »

In fairness, I can't remember seeing any reports of Cocker Spaniels mauling a child to death. They'd probably lick them to death if anything. Very placid.

... yet another classic from the master of generalisation and bold statements :rolleyes:

FYI: http://www.dogstuff.info/cocker_rage_syndrome.html

kerrysgold

Well, a headline saying ''Evil Cocker Spaniel Mauls Child'' with a picture of a puppy-dog eye fluffy cocker staring into the camera, probably wouldn't sell as many "newspapers" (i.e. kennel liners) as "Devil Dog Rottweilers Murder Child" with a picture of a vicious looking, snarling rottie with froth dripping from it. Tabloids should be banned, not dogs.

lightening

I can't believe you choose Cockers! The only dog that has ever bitten me, no messing. My uncles cocker bit me as a kid, nearly had to have my finger amputated.

From what I remember, I went to play with him under the table and someone had sneaked him a bone, he snapped...

Freddie59

peasant wrote: »

... yet another classic from the master of generalisation and bold statements :rolleyes:

No Peasant - that would be you!:p All dogs are wonderful, etc. Blame the humans......:rolleyes:

peasant

Having fun chasing your own tail ?