Dog walkers gggrrrrrr

I can relate to a lot of the experiences posted in this thread. When I was younger, my family were always keen to introduce me to animals and taught me to respect them and what they were capable of. In fact, when I was very young growing up in Thailand I was allowed to wander the village I spent the first few years of my life in alone because my family had a pack of dogs who would follow me, guard me and protect me. They would even herd me home if I wandered too far or got lost.

I've been attacked by dogs numerous times and I agree that many owners are irresponsible and have not put the time or effort into training their pets, as such should not walk them off a lead or ideally not have them at all. Well I've actually been attacked by a whole plethora of animals, luckily not all were serious, the more exotic side of the list includes elephants (baby), snakes, monkeys, crocodiles and a tiger (cub thank god). A couple were my fault to be fair though and I hold no ill will to any of them, except badgers - vile creatures.

Anyway

I prefer to walk my dog off the lead when possible, it lets him be free and run around unshackled. I am by no means suggesting my dog is perfectly trained, but he is trained enough to respond to me quickly - as such I avoid situations with my dog if I am not 100% confident that i will have full control over him as any responsible owner should. As a rule of thumb I keep him close and recall him if he wanders too far or goes out of sight. I will also recall him if I see anyone I suspect may be uneasy around him such as children and old folks, or anyone who is about to walk directly past him, and will keep ahold of his collar till we are past them. I also won't permit him to approach other dogs unless I'm quite confident that dogs owners are present and happy with it - as it's great to let dogs just play with one another.

However, the notion of keeping a dog leashed at all times for the convenience of others and to prevent them from attacking is one thing I must disagree with strongly due to one experience of me being attacked.

In Coventry I was walking my dog in a field off the lead. Mine had wobbled off somewhere, I knew he was close but was out of my field of view (turns out he was behind me somewhere, must of found something really exciting to sniff). Anyway, I heard shouting from the other side of the field and saw that a large Alsatian had gotten away from its owner who was hopelessly shouting and chasing after it. This Alsatian then started bee lining for me and I could tell immediately it wasn't one of the friendly types. Vicious barking, tail down, running at full pelt towards me - all the tell tale signs of "attack mode" were there. I called mine immediately concerned for his safety but as I couldn't see him I thought crap and braced myself for the inevitable lunge from the Alsatian as it rapidly closed the distance towards me across the field. The lunge soon came, but at the last second I saw a flash of black fly past me into the Alsatian. My dog had caught the Alsatian by its throat and was now holding it pinned to the floor. Impressive for a fairly young border collie tbh. I let him keep the Alsatian there till the owner caught up, who wasn't very happy with the outcome but after a heated exchange I told mine to release his and he stormed off with his Alsatian on its lead. Lets face it, he had no basis to complain, his dog had gone to attack me and mine had defended me.

So let me put this question to you, if my dog or any dog had been on its lead in that situation - do you think it would of had the freedom to manoeuvre itself to counter such an attack? I think not, the lead would of been too restrictive possibly putting his safety at risk being in the firing line.

I will be honest, I was taken aback by my dogs response as he has never shown any real aggressive behaviour outside of play fighting and even then he's very docile till it gets quite heated. He hasn't shown any similar behaviour since. But as one post suggested - should my dog be put down because he attacked another? If you want the black and white response then yes, I suppose he should. At the end of the day he attacked and bit another dog, admittedly in self defence. But I'd like to see anyone justify it morally, he was protecting his master / his pack. Same as a parent would protect their child.

It saddens me to think that there are people who are untrusting of all dogs because of their bad experiences and the possibility that their dubious attitude could (READ - COULD) be rubbing off on their children and creating an inherent fear of all dogs. As a more personal side note, I got mine after my father passed away and he has been the most loyal and loving companion I could ever wish for. I have no family as such, no mother, father, grandparents or siblings i have contact with. Just the dog. He is my best friend and my family. Without him I wouldn't like to bet where I'd be today, or whether I'd be here at all as on more than one occasion it's just been him that's given me the will to get out of bed and carry on as usual. I wouldn't wish for anyone to miss out on the chance of having such a companion if they so choose, because they grew up becoming untrusting of them and presuming that the vast majority will attack them if they let their guard down.

For that reason I'm always happy to introduce my dog to children in a controlled environment and let them play provided their parents ensure that their child respects him and understand that he has his own feelings and thoughts. I often like to describe him to children not as a toy, but their best friend at school - you have to be nice and gentle or he wont play with you. Dogs (not all breeds) and children go well together and letting them play is a great way to knacker them both out. In Coventry I had a friend who would sometimes just come and "borrow" my dog to knacker out her son in the park. Her son used to be terrified of dogs but on more than one occasion I've seen him curled up on the floor sleeping next to my fluff ball after a trip to the park and would often be upset when I turned up to take what he liked to think was his dog home.

There is someone not a million miles away I think the above might be beneficial for if they wanted it - all they need do is ask :thumbs:

I don't wish to ruffle any feathers or be the source for anymore out of line or abruptly rude responses on this thread - I just wanted to put my feelings and opinions on the subject out there as fairly and honestly as possible. It's sad I feel the need to put this "disclaimer" here but this thread doesn't exactly have a great track record.

Edit - that's taken me nearly an hour to type on my phone and I've just realised my laptop is right next to me on the table... What a muppet :bonk:
 
Last edited:
To put things in perspective in relation to deaths caused by dog attacks. What was the mentioned number? 5 in the last few years? It wasn't a desperately high number I saw.

I've just seen a nhs quote on google and it said 2 for the year 2010.

Another big cause of deaths -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/790609.stm

Admittedly it's from 2000 - but I imagine there are just as many stairs in the country with as few safety features as there were 12 years ago.

But 2 deaths caused by dogs compared to a 1000 caused by stairs. :thinking:
 
TriggerHappy said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/09/dog-bite-hospital-admissions-rise

I'd say 6,500 hospital admissions from dog attacks in a year - a rise of over 5% on the preceding year - is a serious problem. 500 of those were bites on under 10s that required plastic surgery.

The fact that there are other serious problems in society is a complete irrelevance.
Click to expand...

The article does not say "dog attacks". You've just given it a nice knee-jerk Daily Mail type title all your own there. :D
 
thing is yes one dog attack is too many, and yes owners need to take responsibilities for their animals - but parents also need to take responsibility for their children.

yesterday i was walking my dog (on a lead), when a family passed me in the other direction, with no warning the toddler (probably 2-3 yo) suddenly lunged accross , grabbed my dog round the neck and shouted "deddy bear woof woof"

the parentls just stood their looking proud and with a 'isnt that cute' expression

fortunately my dog is soft as butter and just stood still looking confused , but a lot of dogs wouldnt have reacted well and could easily have perceived that as an attack and acted defensively or out of fright.

I explained these facts to the parents concerned , and in return was told that i was "a grumpy old killjoy"

So in summary

dog owners, keep your dogs under control, train them properly, and keep them on a lead arround children if they can't be trusted not to be boisterous or aggresive whatever the provocation

parents, keep your children under control and teach them that a dog is not a toy and should be treated with respect, and keep them on reins arround other peoples dogs if they can't be trusted not to act inappropriately.

I'd also bet that the majority of those dog bites and strikes occured in the home, so if you are both dog owner and parent the above is doubly important - and don't leave dog and child unattended together unless both can absolutely be trusted to behave well towards the other.
 
faddius said:
To put things in perspective in relation to deaths caused by dog attacks. What was the mentioned number? 5 in the last few years? It wasn't a desperately high number I saw.

I've just seen a nhs quote on google and it said 2 for the year 2010.

Another big cause of deaths -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/790609.stm

Admittedly it's from 2000 - but I imagine there are just as many stairs in the country with as few safety features as there were 12 years ago.

But 2 deaths caused by dogs compared to a 1000 caused by stairs. :thinking:
Click to expand...

why does it have to be about deaths? dog bites and attacks in general are bad enough?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/09/dog-bite-hospital-admissions-rise

Five per cent increase in injuries caused by dogs that required hospital treatment, with young children suffering most.
Click to expand...

this part sums it up

"The RSPCA animal welfare charity stressed the vast majority of bites treated by the NHS would not necessarily be down to dogs being more aggressive, but rather due to human behaviour around dogs."

Dogs aren't changing, people are getting stupider - both dog owners and non dog owners need to take responsibility on their part and as I said above always remember that YOUR dog COULD bite someone, don't use this naive "My dog is so soft he'd never bite anyone" stance. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!

Non dog owners - don't let your kids randomly cuddle dogs - pretty simple on both sides
 
joescrivens said:
why does it have to be about deaths? dog bites and attacks in general are bad enough?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/09/dog-bite-hospital-admissions-rise



this part sums it up

"The RSPCA animal welfare charity stressed the vast majority of bites treated by the NHS would not necessarily be down to dogs being more aggressive, but rather due to human behaviour around dogs."

Dogs aren't changing, people are getting stupider - both dog owners and non dog owners need to take responsibility on their part and as I said above always remember that YOUR dog COULD bite someone, don't use this naive "My dog is so soft he'd never bite anyone" stance. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!

Non dog owners - don't let your kids randomly cuddle dogs - pretty simple on both sides
Click to expand...

and this bit also sums it up

Children tended to treat pet dogs as their peers, it said, often cuddling and kissing them with very close facial contact, which a dog could find threatening. Children should not be left alone with dogs and warned not to approach them when the dog was eating, had a toy or possession, was sleeping, sick, injured, in pain, tired or had hearing or vision impairment

how many people forget the above, a dog has only one way of saying get out of my face, as owners its our reaposnibility not to put them in a position where they feel thay have to defend themselves
 
big soft moose said:
thing is yes one dog attack is too many, and yes owners need to take responsibilities for their animals - but parents also need to take responsibility for their children.

yesterday i was walking my dog (on a lead), when a family passed me in the other direction, with no warning the toddler (probably 2-3 yo) suddenly lunged accross , grabbed my dog round the neck and shouted "deddy bear woof woof"

the parentls just stood their looking proud and with a 'isnt that cute' expression

fortunately my dog is soft as butter and just stood still looking confused , but a lot of dogs wouldnt have reacted well and could easily have perceived that as an attack and acted defensively or out of fright.

I explained these facts to the parents concerned , and in return was told that i was "a grumpy old killjoy"

So in summary

dog owners, keep your dogs under control, train them properly, and keep them on a lead arround children if they can't be trusted not to be boisterous or aggresive whatever the provocation

parents, keep your children under control and teach them that a dog is not a toy and should be treated with respect, and keep them on reins arround other peoples dogs if they can't be trusted not to act inappropriately.

I'd also bet that the majority of those dog bites and strikes occured in the home, so if you are both dog owner and parent the above is doubly important - and don't leave dog and child unattended together unless both can absolutely be trusted to behave well towards the other.
Click to expand...


Thing is Pete as a dog owner you can't win. If the child grabs the dog and gets bit it's your fault for having a vicious dog.

If you stop the child and say he's not good with people I prefer you didn't touch him then they say well you shouldn't have a dog like that out with out it being muzzled.

So even if you have a fantastic kind gentle dog if you don't want people to touch it they they think its vicious. They seem to think they have the right to cuddle stroke or touch any dog they wish.
 
pepi1967 said:
Thing is Pete as a dog owner you can't win. If the child grabs the dog and gets bit it's your fault for having a vicious dog.

If you stop the child and say he's not good with people I prefer you didn't touch him then they say well you shouldn't have a dog like that out with out it being muzzled.

So even if you have a fantastic kind gentle dog if you don't want people to touch it they they think its vicious. They seem to think they have the right to cuddle stroke or touch any dog they wish.
Click to expand...

actually you can win. You do the second one and then nobody gets bitten.
 
We can argue statistics about "dog attacks" all day and I'm pretty sure we won't agree.

My point (see my previous post) is that many of dogs I encounter are not well trained and the owner not in control. I am sure that the majority of dog owners here on TP are responsible owners who have a very well trained dog. But when I am out walking my experience is that many (if not most) dogs are not well trained.

What do people feel about compulsory dog training classes and registration?
 
PatrickO said:
What do people feel about compulsory dog training classes and registration?
Click to expand...

a lot of rescues stipulate this in their adoption contracts, part of the attraction of owning a dog for me is the things i can do with the dog, and this includes tarining, i have 5 dogs, but find time to do something with each of them individually, its great feeling when they get something
 
viv1969 said:
The article does not say "dog attacks". You've just given it a nice knee-jerk Daily Mail type title all your own there. :D
Click to expand...

Dog bite/attack. I'm not sure there's a substantial difference. How many dog bites are severe enough to require hospital admission are accidental? My guess is very few, but by all means correct me with some actual facts and figures yourself rather than just blindly defending your opinion with unsubstantial conjecture.

I'm not engaging in the argument either way, but you can't ignore the fact that an increasingly large number of people require medical treatment for injuries inflicted by dogs. The incidence of other accidents is completely by the by. 6500 is too high. 500 under 10s needed plastic surgery is too high. The fact that figure is climbing and not falling is worrying.

This thread perfectly highlights the issue I have with so many pet owners, not the pets themselves.
 
Last edited:
Pete's story says it all for me. I've met his "violent", "agressive", "monster" dog and I can imagine where he was walking when the untrained toddler threw its arms around his "bear"! :cuckoo:

PatrickO said:
My point (see my previous post) is that many of dogs I encounter are not well trained and the owner not in control. I am sure that the majority of dog owners here on TP are responsible owners who have a very well trained dog. But when I am out walking my experience is that many (if not most) dogs are not well trained.
Click to expand...

What do you consider a well-trained dog, Patrick? Previously you said

PatrickO said:
I find it stressful having a dog running toward me ...

I would say that the majority of dogs I encounter are poorly trained and therefore potentially dangerous.
Click to expand...

I don't consider myself an ultra-responsible dog owner nor my dogs to be ultra-well trained. I assure you that off the lead, my dogs will quite likely run TOWARDS you and away from me! Not at you nor to you, but quite likely towards you! Then they'll turn around and run back to me and away from you.

I have to ask if you think it might say more about your reaction to dogs than about their actual behaviour?
 
blimey faddious - initially thought "too long - not going to read", but I did. and I'm glad you have a good companion who you take the time to look after properly, which is what training is after all. It's not the owners duty to just feed the animal, you need to do all the other things to ensure its well-being.

I am most surprised that another dog would run across a field in a bee line for a human they've never met and hasn't made any interaction with it, with the sole intention of leaping on and hurting / eating them? :thinking:

But yes, training is a necessary part of owning a dog - it's also the owner who needs to be trained.

Not sure compulsory training "classes" are necessary, as all they do is teach the owner to train the dog. But a dog needs to be trained, and needs to know its place in the pack in order to be content.

puppies and kids are very much alike, from what I've seen, if someone has an ill-behaved dog, then their children are likely to be similar.
 
Last edited:
TriggerHappy said:
.... you can't ignore the fact that an increasingly large of people require medical treatment for injuries inflicted by dogs. The incidence of other accidents is completely by the by.
Click to expand...

As with car accidents that nowadays so often seem to require medical treatment for injuries.

TriggerHappy said:
This thread perfectly highlights the issue I have with so many pet owners, not the pets themselves.
Click to expand...

I am going to turn that around. As described in my previous post, this thread perfectly highlights the issue I have with so many anti-pet owners.
 
Hi Jonathan

As a non dog owner I'm no expert on dog training. But, I would have thought that a reasonably responsible owner would want to be sure that their dog will obey simple commands such as coming back to the owner when called. I expect you are better able to say what represents a well trained dog.

My reaction with dogs which run at (or toward) me is to stand still. I am not frightened of animals just as I am not frightened of cars. But I find both stressful if the owners don't appear to be in control.

I also feel selective quoting which changes the meaning and emphasis is not polite or helpful.
 
Yves Geza said:
As with car accidents that nowadays so often seem to require medical treatment for injuries.

I am going to turn that around. As described in my previous post, this thread perfectly highlights the issue I have with so many anti-pet owners.
Click to expand...

So it's ok more people are getting injured in their cars too?

I'm a pet owner too so don't call me anti-pet. I just see such a high number of people who have a blatant disregard for others around them as assume that because they love their little pooch everyone else will welcome the animal's attention too. By all means let a dog off it's leash in a safe area, but don't do it where your dog can bound up to children/non-dog folk because they won't welcome it.

What I'd really like to see is more dedicated enclosed dog parks like they have in the US, so people have somewhere safe and designed for the job to let their dogs run away from people who won't welcome it.
 
viv1969 said:
Yes, because there are no dog bites in the US are there? :thinking:

http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/stop-animal-abuse/fact-sheets/dog-bites.html
Click to expand...

The suggestion for dedicated dog parks was just so that dogs can run free in areas where they won't bound up to people who won't appreciate it. Whether they address bites is another issue.

Also, you want to suggest I was doing the daily mail sensationalist thing? Well way to pick a nice impartial source yourself ;)

This thread is pathetic. I'm disappointed in myself for getting sucked into such a dead-end discussion. I'm out.
 
PatrickO said:
Hi Jonathan

As a non dog owner I'm no expert on dog training. But, I would have thought that a reasonably responsible owner would want to be sure that their dog will obey simple commands such as coming back to the owner when called. I expect you are better able to say what represents a well trained dog.

My reaction with dogs which run at (or toward) me is to stand still. I am not frightened of animals just as I am not frightened of cars. But I find both stressful if the owners don't appear to be in control.

I also feel selective quoting which changes the meaning and emphasis is not polite or helpful.
Click to expand...

Patrick, dogs are far more biddable and trainable than children because they want to obey simple commands but, like children, they do get distracted and don't all, always respond instantly. I quoted your word 'towards' on this verbal forum, to point out the considerable difference between a hound running towards you and the Hound of the Baskervilles charging at you!

As with you, I simply cannot remember the last time I saw a car being driven on the road with the driver showing any real level of skilled control. So I drive [and walk] defensively and like you I'll stand still if a strange dog comes bounding to investigate me.

The difference between us is that I don't consider those situations stressful
 
PatrickO said:
Hi Jonathan

****As a non dog owner I'm no expert on dog training. But, I would have thought that a reasonably responsible owner would want to be sure that their dog will obey simple commands such as coming back to the owner when called. I expect you are better able to say what represents a well trained dog.****

My reaction with dogs which run at (or toward) me is to stand still. I am not frightened of animals just as I am not frightened of cars. But I find both stressful if the owners don't appear to be in control.

I also feel selective quoting which changes the meaning and emphasis is not polite or helpful.
Click to expand...

It's the responsible dog owners that aren't the problem - it's the irresponsible ones. Do you think these ones will bother turning up and paying for training? No they won't.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I'm a pet owner too so don't call me anti-pet. I just see such a high number of people who have a blatant disregard for others around them as assume that because they love their little pooch everyone else will welcome the animal's attention too. By all means let a dog off it's leash in a safe area, but don't do it where your dog can bound up to children/non-dog folk because they won't welcome it.
Click to expand...

I can do no more than repeat Big Soft Moose's post about the toddler grabbing his dog and [dare I selectively?] quote joescrivens' post

joescrivens said:
"The RSPCA animal welfare charity stressed the vast majority of bites treated by the NHS would not necessarily be down to dogs being more aggressive, but rather due to human behaviour around dogs."

Dogs aren't changing, people are getting stupider ...
Click to expand...
 
TriggerHappy said:
Dog bite/attack. I'm not sure there's a substantial difference. .
Click to expand...

thing is the 6000 statistic includes dog strikes (which includes anyone knocked over by a dog, who trips over a dog , or has any other injury related to a dog )

2 years ago i fell over on some ice while walking my dog and broke two fingers on my lead hand- that required medical atention and probably went down as dog related.

more recently i stuffed up my ankle in a fall on a muddy path when the dog suddenly pulled , again dog related injury

and so forth

no one is denying that serious dog attacks do happen , but they arent common, and little johnny is far more likely to be attacked by the family pet (when he pulls its tail, steps on it, tries to take its toy away etc) than he is by a strangers dog .
 
overbez said:
I am most surprised that another dog would run across a field in a bee line for a human they've never met and hasn't made any interaction with it, with the sole intention of leaping on and hurting / eating them? :thinking:
Click to expand...

It wasn't the first time it's happened like that. There was a similar incident when I was 11 or 12 - a dog had gotten away from its owner and simply charged me from across a field and lunged when it was in range. Luckily that time I had a large bag I used like a shield till the dog backed off.

No idea why, certainly hadn't provoked them. Maybe they viewed the field / park as their territory and that I shouldn't of been there? :shrug:
 
faddius said:
It wasn't the first time it's happened like that. There was a similar incident when I was 11 or 12 - a dog had gotten away from its owner and simply charged me from across a field and lunged when it was in range. Luckily that time I had a large bag I used like a shield till the dog backed off.

No idea why, certainly hadn't provoked them. Maybe they viewed the field / park as their territory and that I shouldn't of been there? :shrug:
Click to expand...

you aren't by any chance shaped like a bone and very pale are you?
 
Faddius...be honest now....do you say "meow" alot and have about 9 birthdays a year? :thinking:
 
Having just read all 7 pages to this thread... I think I can sum the whole thing up like this:
:bang:

I saw a comment saying that they hoped dogs had been put down because of a bite... without any facts behind it at all; for all we know, the person who was bitten could have been poking the dog in the eyes with a stick.

I'm just astonished and actually a little saddened that this is the sort of reaction present in society. I say society as any internet forum (hobbies aside) could give a fair representation of society in general.


As for the newspaper link on the previous page, again, more sensationalist reporting.. see this video for a gratuitous dog attack... both bites and "strikes" as per the article. http://youtu.be/pMuy5CIsxHI
Yes, I'm being deliberately facetious, but you can bet that a number of those 'dog related strikes' might simply be someone tripping over the dog, or the dog jumping and the person falling? No, I don't know this, but the facts presented in that DM style report don't give the info either.... plus it didn't say A&E either, it said hospital admissions, so we're not even sure what proportion of those people considered 'emergencies', and therefore serious.

Statistics can be wheeled out to give anything, 84.3% of people know that ;)


I'm not deliberately stirring the water again, as it's clearly all been said in the past 7 pages, but I just wish people wouldn't just focus on the ifs and buts.

Yes I'm a dog owner, and yes I have an issue with unruly/badly behaved dogs, but some of the comments in here are just crazy (some are sensible though :D ).
 
RacingSnake said:
Having just read all 7 pages to this thread... I think I can sum the whole thing up like this:
:bang:

I saw a comment saying that they hoped dogs had been put down because of a bite... without any facts behind it at all; for all we know, the person who was bitten could have been poking the dog in the eyes with a stick.

I'm just astonished and actually a little saddened that this is the sort of reaction present in society. I say society as any internet forum (hobbies aside) could give a fair representation of society in general.

As for the newspaper link on the previous page, again, more sensationalist reporting.. see this video for a gratuitous dog attack... both bites and "strikes" as per the article. http://youtu.be/pMuy5CIsxHI
Yes, I'm being deliberately facetious, but you can bet that a number of those 'dog related strikes' might simply be someone tripping over the dog, or the dog jumping and the person falling? No, I don't know this, but the facts presented in that DM style report don't give the info either.... plus it didn't say A&E either, it said hospital admissions, so we're not even sure what proportion of those people considered 'emergencies', and therefore serious.

Statistics can be wheeled out to give anything, 84.3% of people know that ;)

I'm not deliberately stirring the water again, as it's clearly all been said in the past 7 pages, but I just wish people wouldn't just focus on the ifs and buts.

Yes I'm a dog owner, and yes I have an issue with unruly/badly behaved dogs, but some of the comments in here are just crazy (some are sensible though :D ).
Click to expand...

That's odd. I also read the thread an could've sworn it was about a poorly controlled dog knocking over a tripod.

It beats me why owners of potentially dangerous dogs aren't required to have insurance, like users of potentially dangerous vehicles. That way, if the dog or owner cause harm to someone, there's a simple solution and no need for agro.
 
I was brought up with dogs, most of my childhood with Irish wolfhounds, now as big dogs i/we as a family we were always aware that people, even doh owners could be or were nervous of them. Three things stand out from when I was younger.

1 I went to school with a girl who was terrified of dogs, we always put the dog out when she came round then one evening when I had a load of friends over she decided to talk to the dog and over a few weeks she spent more and more time with her until they spent the whole time she was round at the house together.

2 when we were on holiday one year we saw a lad of about 13 with his parents who kept looking over at us, after a while his dad came over and explained that his son had been attacked by a alsation (sp) the year before and believed every dog he saw would attack him. ( Totally understandable) Anyway after a while the lad eventually very nervously came over and spoke to her, after a while he wasn't so nervous and asked to have a photo taken to show his nan and friends. He ended spending part more of the afternoon with us and gave the dog an ice cream cone. For me this was probably the high light of having a dog.

3. Sometimes dogs aren't always at fault, we rescued a wolfhound who had been taken to our vets to be put down as the family didn't want him anymore, but do we took him on.
I went into hospital and had a knee op, and came home and he nipped mum. I took him in the hall and told him off, at which point he chased me through the house and I had to shut myself in the conservatory, we took him back to the vet as he nipped me and dad over the next week, it turned out that he had a brain tumour the size of a grapefruit, so the poor chap couldn't help it, he was put down, as there was no way we could have a dog who was unreliable and was in pain.

So for me I think it has to be a bit of give and take from both dog owners and non dog owners. We can live together without problems with a bit of common sense from each side. Like so many things in life its the inconsiderate few that give a bad name to so many good dog owners in the same way that it is the few anti dog people who give people who don't like digs a bad name.

Edit due to silly spelling mistakes due to posting on phone.
 
Last edited:
Davec223 said:
I was brought up with dogs, most of my childhood with Irish wolfhounds, now as big dogs i/we as a family we were always aware that people, even doh owners could be or were nervous of them. Three things stand out from when I was younger.

1 I went to school with a girl who was terrified of dogs, we always put the dog out when she came round then one evening when I had a load of friends over she decided to talk to the dog and over a few weeks she spent more and more time with her until they spent the whole time she was round at the house together.

2 when we were on holiday one year we saw a lad of about 13 with his parents who kept looking over at us, after a while his dad came over and explained that his son had been attacked by a alsation (sp) the year before and believed every dog he saw would attack him. ( Totally understandable) Anyway after a while the lad eventually very nervously came over and spoke to her, after a while he wasn't so nervous and asked to have a photo taken to show his nan and friends. He ended spending part more of the afternoon with us and gave the dog an ice cream cone. For me this was probably the high light of having a dog.

3. Sometimes dogs aren't always at fault, we rescued a wolfhound who had been taken to our vets to be put down as the family didn't want him anymore, but do we took him on.
I went into hospital and had a knee op, and came home and he nipped mum. I took him in the hall and told him off, at which point he chased me through the house and I had to shut myself in the conservatory, we took him back to the vet as he nipped me and dad over the next week, it turned out that he had a brain tumour the size of a grapefruit, so the poor chap couldn't help it, he was put down, as there was no way we could have a dog who was unreliable and was in pain.

So for me I think it has to be a bit of hive and take from both dog owners and non dog owners. We can live together without problems with a bit of common sense from each side. Like so many things in life its the inconsiderate few that give a bad name to so many good dog owners in the same way that it is the few anti dig people who give people who don't like digs a bad name.
Click to expand...

Brilliant post :thumbs:
 
TriggerHappy said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/09/dog-bite-hospital-admissions-rise

I'd say 6,500 hospital admissions from dog attacks in a year - a rise of over 5% on the preceding year - is a serious problem. 500 of those were bites on under 10s that required plastic surgery.

The fact that there are other serious problems in society is a complete irrelevance.
Click to expand...

I realise that you've left the thread, and that this article has been commented on, but there's one very important set of stats that's been left out; that is whether the bites/strikes/attacks happened within the home or outside.

Without that, the stats are next to useless if you are making an argument about dangerous dogs.

I would suggest that by far the greatest number of 'attacks' happen within the home and are more often than not inflicted on their owners because that is where a dog is likely to be at it's most defensive.

To be honest I'm more concerned at the amount of cruelty inflicted on dogs by humans than the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Johnd2000 said:
That's odd. I also read the thread an could've sworn it was about a poorly controlled dog knocking over a tripod.

It beats me why owners of potentially dangerous dogs aren't required to have insurance, like users of potentially dangerous vehicles. That way, if the dog or owner cause harm to someone, there's a simple solution and no need for agro.
Click to expand...

Potentially dangerous vehicles???!

Please elaborate!
 
haphazardly modified corsa with springs cut down with an angle grinder, and the engine out of an astra gsi installed by a cack handed chimp with a ball peen hammer, but undeclared to the dvla ?

The trouble is that just as the sort of numpty who modifies his "phat motah" in this style is driving arround with no valid insurance, so the irresponsible dog owner will be the one who doesnt bother with insurance for his pet - so all dog insurance would do would be another expense for the responsible owner (actually ive got it anyway - its a side benefit to my pet insurance, up to 500k for damage or harm cause by the doggeh)

looking on the brightside, at least it isnt practical to attach half a tonne of fibre glass tat to a staffie/mastif cross :lol:
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
haphazardly modified corsa with springs cut down with an angle grinder, and the engine out of an astra gsi installed by a cack handed chimp with a ball peen hammer ?
Click to expand...

Which in the majority of cases would have invalidated the insurance anyway!
 
DemiLion said:
Which in the majority of cases would have invalidated the insurance anyway!
Click to expand...

exactly - especially when they fail to tell swansea

in the same vein the numpty dog owner will probably invalidate his pet insurance (assuming he bothers to take it out in the first place) by doing something brain dead like training it to be unreassonably aggressive , to make him feel well 'ard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top