Walking german shephard around estate with no leash

borderlinemeath

ForestFire wrote: »

I did not miss quote, I made up my own fantasy to highlight the point that we need to "believe the OP or there is no point"

Right. So you ignored my post where I said that a tiger can weigh 300kgs? The OP stated it was "a tiger sized animal"
Do you still believe the OP??

ihatewinter

ganmo wrote: »

strange that a thread that is based on a law that the law its self hasn't been cited

A&P poster generally pride themselves on been responsible pet owners, yet here we have posters defending an individual that is flouting the law.
the law is the law, I'm going to attack it as i reckon it is needed but i believe there is no need to list the breeds just say that all dogs weighing over Xkg are required to be on a short lead in public.

But you can't tarnish all the above dog breeds. A person or child is more likely to be bitten by a border collie/sheepdog or terrier type than one of these breeds. The only reason these breeds in Ireland get a bad name is because idiots breed them and then sell them to the illiterates/low social class. Any person who buys a restricted dog breed from a reputable source has research the personality and traits of this breed and will put in the time and effort to train and exercise the dog so that it is well socialised.

Ganmo it's like someone painting all farmers with the same brush, they're animal abusers and do not care about the welfare of their animals. Sure they only care about the money etc etc

borderlinemeath

ganmo wrote: »

Are they less likely to attack than those on the list? If a heavy dog attacks it will cause more damage than if a yaper

This is not a nonsensical law, you simply don't agree with it.

I have experience with lots of breeds. The most aggressive in my opinion is a border collie, followed by some of the terriers. Collies need to work and if they don't they can get so bored it leads to behavioural problems. They're well known for nipping at childrens legs whilst "herding" them. Terriers can be very fiesty and short tempered and have no patience. A JRT killed a baby in the UK in recent years.

Your idea that a heavy dog is more vicious is the nonsense here.

ganmo

ihatewinter wrote: »

But you can't tarnish all the above dog breeds. A person or child is more likely to be bitten by a border collie/sheepdog or terrier type than one of these breeds. The only reason these breeds in Ireland get a bad name is because idiots breed them and then sell them to the illiterates/low social class. Any person who buys a restricted dog breed from a reputable source has research the personality and traits of this breed and will put in the time and effort to train and exercise the dog so that it is well socialised.

Ganmo it's like someone painting all farmers with the same brush, they're animal abusers and do not care about the welfare of their animals. Sure they only care about the money etc etc

Do you have stats on dog bites?

ganmo

[quote="borderlinemeath
Your idea that a heavy dog is more vicious is the nonsense here.[/quote]

What I said was when they attack they the damage they cause will be more severe, not that they are more likely to attack

ganmo

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I have experience with lots of breeds. The most aggressive in my opinion is a border collie, followed by some of the terriers. Collies need to work and if they don't they can get so bored it leads to behavioural problems. They're well known for nipping at childrens legs whilst "herding" them. Terriers can be very fiesty and short tempered and have no patience. A JRT killed a baby in the UK in recent years.

Your idea that a heavy dog is more vicious is the nonsense here.

I too have experience with many dog breeds, never met a nice Dalmatian

YurOK2

ganmo wrote: »

What I said was when IF they attack they the damage they cause will MAY be more severe, not that they are more likely to attack

FYP.

ihatewinter

Ganmo from the Independent 2015

A scientific paper, published last week, analysed dog bites requiring hospitalisation in Ireland over the fifteen year period from 1998 to 2013. The incidence has increased from 4.65 to 5.64 per 100000 people, a jump of over 20%. And this does not include the many dog bites that are not severe enough to need hospitalisation. What has caused this increase, and what can be done about it?
Last week's research paper suggests that the increase could be linked to the implementation of the Control of Dogs Act 1998, which imposed strict controls on eleven breeds of dog (such as Rottweilers, German Shepherds and others). These breeds - and their crosses - are meant to muzzled and kept on a short leash in public areas. There is a theory that this legislation may make people too relaxed around breeds that are not on the restricted list, making them more likely to be bitten by "ordinary dogs" than if the restrictions were not in place.
I am not convinced by this theory, but it is true that this type of breed-specific legislation is internationally recognised as being unfair, unnecessary and ineffective. Even before the restrictions were brought in, Irish law insisted that all dog owners had to have their dogs under "effectual control" in public. It is difficult to see why extra controls are needed: the fact that they rarely seem to be enforced supports my own belief that they were a political over-reaction to highly publicised rare cases of serious dog attacks in public places that had been in the media in the months prior to the introduction of the new laws. While I can't see that the restrictions could actually be a factor causing the increase in dog bites, I do agree that they should be repealed. Other countries - like Scotland - have dog control laws based on "deed not breed" i.e. dogs with a track record of causing problems are placed under tighter controls. This is a more logical and effective approach than the current Irish breed-linked regulations.
So why are more people are being bitten by dogs? To find the answer, it's worth looking back to another scientific paper, published in 2008, which analysed the background to 234 dog bite incidents in Ireland. Interviews were conducted with people bitten by dogs, and with the owners of the dogs, trying to pinpoint the precise details of each episode. A biting incident was defined as when "a visible mark was left on the victim's skin": this included many minor bites that did not require professional medical treatment. The paper reported some highly significant findings about dog bites.
First, children are three to five times more likely than adults to be bitten by a dog, for several reasons. Children are smaller, so dogs may see them as weaker adversaries. Children are less informed and less responsible than adults, and they are more likely to interact in inappropriate ways with dogs. Adults know there are some things that you just don't do (e.g. putting your face close to a dog that is eating its dinner). Adults also recognise the warning signs that a dog may be about to bite (e.g. growling or snarling). The main messages are that adults have a responsibility to ensure that children are taught about dog behaviour from an early age, and young children should never be left unsupervised with dogs. There are some excellent online lessons designed to teach children how to interact with dogs (e.g. the UK Kennel Clubs "Safe and Sound" programme). All parents should ensure that their children visit these educational websites. The decision, last year, by Educate Together national schools to include animal welfare and behaviour on their curriculum is another helpful step forwards.
Second, the study showed that the two dog types that were most commonly involved in bite incidents (Collies and terriers) also happened to be the two most popular breed types. While some breeds of dogs were more commonly reported in biting incidents, these did not fit with commonly held beliefs(e.g. Papillons and Pekingese were in the top ten breeds, while the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was one of the least likely breeds to bite). This aspect of the study confirmed that it's wrong to focus on dog breed when considering how to prevent dog bites.
Third, the study found a strong relationship between encroaching on a dog's territory and bite incidents. In nearly every case, the person bitten was doing something active, such as entering the dog's property, playing with the dog or trying to catch the dog. In only 2.2% of cases, the victim was not doing anything connected with the dog. This stresses the point that human actions are almost always significant in dog bite incidents: if humans can be taught to behave differently, many dog bites can be prevented. Indeed, the main conclusion of the scientific paper was that education of the public, especially children, could prevent a significant proportion of dog bites.
What do I think has caused the increase in dog bites in Ireland? I suspect that more dogs are being kept in closer proximity to humans, with owners seeing them as part of their "family". And most people don't really understand dog behaviour, causing them to accidentally provoke dogs to bite.
The answer to the dog bite problem is education. If we all learned more about dogs, we'd be far less likely to be bitten.

ShaShaBear

ganmo wrote: »

I too have experience with many dog breeds, never met a nice Dalmatian

And yet neither a border collie nor a dalmation is on the restricted breed list.
I've been bitten a total of three times in my life by a dog. All three were border collies. Wanna hear something even odder? Two of those collies belonged to me! Notice the statistics on how many border collies end up in pounds and tied up outside rescues?
My daughter is not yet 11 months old and already knows to "ask permission" to pet our own dog. She will hold her hand out, and must wait for Opie to approach her for a pet. And when she is old enough to be outside without a pram, I will teach her to exercise caution with stray or off-lead dogs. She will know to stay close to me, not to scream and not to run at or away from such a dog. A perfectly harmless and friendly off-lead dog will run after a child simply because the poor mite thinks it is a game of chase.

I wonder would the OP be on here writing the same post if this dog owner were walking a Great Dane/Irish Wolfhound/Bloodhound/Siberian Husky/Dalmation since all of these very large dogs are perfectly fine to be walked off a lead with no muzzle?

222233

i do think the problem is people are assuming as someone else quoted that it is a GS and doing so clearly with a large lack of knowledge of animal behaviour and how to behave towards animals.

If it were a dog lover to start the conversation they would simply go up and compliment the owner about his lovely dog and ask about the breed/behaviour etc as opposed to assuming that this dog is a risk to "children", chances are the children are probably more of a danger to the dog!

Very true about the collies turning up in pounds / rescues, have also noticed a huge increase in smaller terriers too.

DBB

Closing for mod review.

DBB

Okay. This thread is now disappearing up it's own backside, so I'm going to close it.
But before I do so, I want to address some issues regarding posting behaviour.
When a mod issues an on-thread warning, it is expected to be heeded. The warning may have been directed at a different user, but surely, surely, other posters can see from these warnings what behaviour doesn't wash, and will not go down that road again? Surely?
No. Apparantly not.
Only a few short hours ago, I exhorted another user not to back-seat mod. And yet, only a tiny amount of time later, there's more back-seat modding from another poster:

ForestFire wrote: »

Off topic and not dealing with the issues of this tread.. Dog not on lead, no muzzle breaking the law

ForestFire wrote: »

We have to assume what the OP is saying is true or there is no point to any discussion on boards. I think that is a boards rule? At least in other sections it is?

Anyone interested actually talking about the thread issues??

Not only did you back-seat moderate despite an earlier on-thread warning ForestFire, your level of passive-aggression on many of your posts is utterly unacceptable. The liberal use of the :rolleyes: smiley is antagonising and condescending. Now, I don't expect you to agree with me on this, but that's how your posts read.
Having already asked you by PM yesterday to tone down your rather abrasive tone in the way you addressed me, here you are using exactly the same tone of derision towards many other posters. So, you got a personally-issued private warning to rein it in, and you ignored my general on-thread warning yesterday to remind posters that it's okay to diagree, but it is not okay to be disrespectful.
I also asked you yesterday by PM, repeatedly, to report posts you have a problem with rather than tackling them yourself. But again, that was ignored too.
Note, I am NOT, and I WILL NOT debate the subject of this thread. I am addressing your behaviour alone.
It is all I can do not to ban you from the forum for ignoring so many mod warnings and instructions here. So, I would suggest that before you post in this forum again, you seriously consider how your posts read to others, and seriously consider that I get majorly, majorly browned-off with people who behave disrespectfully towards one another.
One more incident of charter-bending behaviour from you in any other thread here will result in a ban without warning.

To all other posters, again, I need to reiterate that posters treat one another respectfully. A few posts sailed close to the wind today in this thread.

Thanks,
Thread closed.