Two dogs killed & two women injured

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we discuss the pit bull eating the dead dog in the yard??? I’ve had dogs my entire life and have never known one to eat a dead animal. What the hell is that? I’ve even had retrieving bird dogs. Was this dog starved? I just can’t imagine another dog killing and eating another.

Any IDs on the breed of the leashed dog that the pit killed?

This happened in my neighborhood, and I know the owners of the victim dog, a very sweet small/medium doodle mix that was always leashed on walks. The grapevine says the aggressor dog was a pit that apparently a neighborhood family was fostering (and doing a shockingly poor job of that, clearly).

People are out walking their dogs constantly around here, and everyone is shaken up and feeling horrible that our neighbor and her lovely dog had to endure this. We are all thinking about what we would or should have done if it happened to us. Does everyone else walk around their neighborhoods with bear or pepper spray just in case? Are those actually effective in dog attack scenarios?

Oh, goody. Gossip. That'll help.

This information is actually responsive to the thread topic, unlike the bizarre rants from the pit apologists.

I’m curious about what others do, if anything, to be prepared should they or their dog be attacked by a dangerous animal in their neighborhood?

1) leash your dog (no retractable leashes. 6ft max, 4 is better)
2) keep your dog under your control (by your side, quiet, focused, not wandering off-trail, not barking at passers-by)
3) stay alert and scan for hazards. You are on-duty. No headphones, no phone, stay present, eyes scanning for hazards (the more time you have to respond, the better your response is likely to be)
4) carry dog repel spray (something like this: https://www.amazon.com/REPELLENT-Repeller-Agressive-Attack-BICYCLE/dp/B01FYAIE80) and/or pepper spray and, most importantly, know how to use it
5) carry a walking stick or other 'break stick' in case you need to break up a fight so you're not using your hands/arms

But really? the first 3 will keep you safe. Most people invite trouble with an off-leash dog, or a dog that's too far outside their control, don't train their dogs not to bark ("don't start none, won't be none" applies in the dog world, too), and are half up their own backsides, talking on the phone, or texting, or...

Are you saying that if you ‘invite trouble’ by say, having your dog on a long lead while hiking that it’s okay that your ‘sweet pittie’ mauls that person and their dog to death?

Yes, fool, if you're inviting trouble by not having control of your dog, you become complicit in what happens to your dog. Same as if they get bit by a snake, get into poison ivy, or snap a leg in that gopher hole you would've avoided by having them on trail with you, like you should've.

The new dog owner's mentality of "close enough" isn't. There are rules for a reason, and if you care at all about your pet's well-being you should follow them. There are all sorts of actual liabilities you'll avoid by doing so; you don't need to make up horror stories about packs of mauling pit bulls.

Y'all treat this like it's playtime, when it's actually supposed to be taking responsibility for a living creature. No pride, no sense, just everything's a playzone and you can half-ass it.

The two women, the subject of this thread, were injured trying to save their poor doodle from the pit mix. Whether their doodle was heeling or 4 feet away from them, they couldn't save it and were injured themselves.

You're right that pitbulls are not "playtime". They are dangerous. And they are ubiquitous, on every neighborhood. Because of rescues.

You were there? You saw it? The two women weren't gossiping (like you) while their dog on a retractable leash started barking at an unleashed dog? You're sure of it?

No, you're not, because no, you weren't. And this is why nobody takes you haters seriously. You're so incredibly willing to talk out your arse and claim facts not in evidence, and you speak as if you know when you clearly do not.

Dog ownership is not playtime. Not any breed, not any size, not at any point. If you have different standards for different breeds, you're the problem. All dogs can bite, should be assumed to be unfriendly unless known, and all dog handlers should be focused on their dog(s), which should be under the owner's responsible control at all times.

This is how we keep ourselves, our dogs, and our neighbors safe.

And those young women shouldn’t wear such revealing clothes either. Basically inviting the rapists over to her.

No. One is an example of humans minding their business: women are allowed to dress however they please within the law. The other is an example of people not following the law (dogs are supposed to be under their owners control at all times).

On a leash is in control

On a retractable leash 10 feet away while you're on your phone is not in control.

Legally, morally, and ethically, it is.

Wrong on all counts (DP here).

Here is the Montgomery County rule regarding unwanted contact from dogs:

Unwanted Contact -
The pet owner must prevent unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal that occurs outside the owner’s property that may cause alarm in a reasonable person, such as biting, chasing, tracking, inhibiting movement, or jumping. ($500 fine)

Since retractable leashes and leashes over 4-6 feet do not adequately prevent "unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal" then you are violating the law.

I personally prefer DC's rule (which simply required dogs to be on leashes of 4' or less in any public area) because it's a clearer bright line that is harder to argue with. But the rules have the same goal and that's to require dog owners to control their dogs on leashes in public areas. A dog on a long lead or a retractable leash cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Morally/ethically is a judgment call but since it's not cruel to leash a dog (and if it is then I guess we should ban dogs as pets because we cannot have dogs as pets without leash laws), I don't see the issue here.

Leash your dog, no retractable leashes, no long leads.

Not sure what your point is. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if that dog is 20 ft away and bites you. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash, however, without unwanted contact, has their dog leashed.

Whether this dog had a 4-6' leash or a retractable leash, though, didn't save it.

I'm reminded of the dog that was killed in front of its owner, while on a leash, in Falls Church, by a crazy man with a knife. Being on a leash didn't save that dog either.

The goal of a leash is not to protect the dog. The goal of the leash is to protect everyone else from the dog. We have different laws to address crazy people with knives -- these laws, unfortunately, are not 100% effective.

But actually, technically, a dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if they are unable to prevent unwanted contact from the dog. Their dog doesn't have to be 10 feet away and they don't have to bit anyone. If the dog is not under the owner's control, they owner is in violation of the law. I can film you walking your dog on the long leash and report you to authorities.

I'll give you this: MoCo does not explicitly ban retractable leashes. So if you keep the retractable leash retracted to a short distance and never unlock so the dog can extend it (in other words use it the way a shorter leash would function and only that way) then you might not be in violation of the law. Though I think this is stupid since retractable leashes can fail and the way the handles work make them easier for a dog to rip out of an owner's hands, so I don't get why you wouldn't just get a regular leash. Also retractable leashes are explicitly banned a lot of places (because they don't work like leashes!) so you need to be ready to check the local laws if you take your dog outside the county. Good luck!

Honey, I live in Nova, not Moco. But I can look up their leash laws.

You are blaming these women for allowing their dog to be killed by an officer leash dog, and getting injured in the process. It's bizarre, the lengths you are going to in defending the pit bull.

No I'm not blaming these women for anything. And do not "Honey" me.

We don't know what happened with the dog attack. We don't know how the dog who was mauled was behaving or how he was controlled prior to the attack. There's no point in arguing it because we don't know

What I'm saying is that retractable leashes are not responsible. They don't allow you to control your dog. This is why they are banned many places. A lot of newer dig owners might not realize the problem with them (they just think "oh great if the leash retracts then I can let my dog wander but still pull him back if I need to" not understanding that a retractable leash is not a good way to do that). So I am attempting to educate people in the problem with retractable leashes and explain why under MoCo law, you are much better off with a shorter, solid leash and training your dog for recall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we discuss the pit bull eating the dead dog in the yard??? I’ve had dogs my entire life and have never known one to eat a dead animal. What the hell is that? I’ve even had retrieving bird dogs. Was this dog starved? I just can’t imagine another dog killing and eating another.

Any IDs on the breed of the leashed dog that the pit killed?

This happened in my neighborhood, and I know the owners of the victim dog, a very sweet small/medium doodle mix that was always leashed on walks. The grapevine says the aggressor dog was a pit that apparently a neighborhood family was fostering (and doing a shockingly poor job of that, clearly).

People are out walking their dogs constantly around here, and everyone is shaken up and feeling horrible that our neighbor and her lovely dog had to endure this. We are all thinking about what we would or should have done if it happened to us. Does everyone else walk around their neighborhoods with bear or pepper spray just in case? Are those actually effective in dog attack scenarios?

Oh, goody. Gossip. That'll help.

This information is actually responsive to the thread topic, unlike the bizarre rants from the pit apologists.

I’m curious about what others do, if anything, to be prepared should they or their dog be attacked by a dangerous animal in their neighborhood?

1) leash your dog (no retractable leashes. 6ft max, 4 is better)
2) keep your dog under your control (by your side, quiet, focused, not wandering off-trail, not barking at passers-by)
3) stay alert and scan for hazards. You are on-duty. No headphones, no phone, stay present, eyes scanning for hazards (the more time you have to respond, the better your response is likely to be)
4) carry dog repel spray (something like this: https://www.amazon.com/REPELLENT-Repeller-Agressive-Attack-BICYCLE/dp/B01FYAIE80) and/or pepper spray and, most importantly, know how to use it
5) carry a walking stick or other 'break stick' in case you need to break up a fight so you're not using your hands/arms

But really? the first 3 will keep you safe. Most people invite trouble with an off-leash dog, or a dog that's too far outside their control, don't train their dogs not to bark ("don't start none, won't be none" applies in the dog world, too), and are half up their own backsides, talking on the phone, or texting, or...

Are you saying that if you ‘invite trouble’ by say, having your dog on a long lead while hiking that it’s okay that your ‘sweet pittie’ mauls that person and their dog to death?

Yes, fool, if you're inviting trouble by not having control of your dog, you become complicit in what happens to your dog. Same as if they get bit by a snake, get into poison ivy, or snap a leg in that gopher hole you would've avoided by having them on trail with you, like you should've.

The new dog owner's mentality of "close enough" isn't. There are rules for a reason, and if you care at all about your pet's well-being you should follow them. There are all sorts of actual liabilities you'll avoid by doing so; you don't need to make up horror stories about packs of mauling pit bulls.

Y'all treat this like it's playtime, when it's actually supposed to be taking responsibility for a living creature. No pride, no sense, just everything's a playzone and you can half-ass it.

The two women, the subject of this thread, were injured trying to save their poor doodle from the pit mix. Whether their doodle was heeling or 4 feet away from them, they couldn't save it and were injured themselves.

You're right that pitbulls are not "playtime". They are dangerous. And they are ubiquitous, on every neighborhood. Because of rescues.

You were there? You saw it? The two women weren't gossiping (like you) while their dog on a retractable leash started barking at an unleashed dog? You're sure of it?

No, you're not, because no, you weren't. And this is why nobody takes you haters seriously. You're so incredibly willing to talk out your arse and claim facts not in evidence, and you speak as if you know when you clearly do not.

Dog ownership is not playtime. Not any breed, not any size, not at any point. If you have different standards for different breeds, you're the problem. All dogs can bite, should be assumed to be unfriendly unless known, and all dog handlers should be focused on their dog(s), which should be under the owner's responsible control at all times.

This is how we keep ourselves, our dogs, and our neighbors safe.

And those young women shouldn’t wear such revealing clothes either. Basically inviting the rapists over to her.

No. One is an example of humans minding their business: women are allowed to dress however they please within the law. The other is an example of people not following the law (dogs are supposed to be under their owners control at all times).

On a leash is in control

On a retractable leash 10 feet away while you're on your phone is not in control.

Legally, morally, and ethically, it is.

Wrong on all counts (DP here).

Here is the Montgomery County rule regarding unwanted contact from dogs:

Unwanted Contact -
The pet owner must prevent unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal that occurs outside the owner’s property that may cause alarm in a reasonable person, such as biting, chasing, tracking, inhibiting movement, or jumping. ($500 fine)

Since retractable leashes and leashes over 4-6 feet do not adequately prevent "unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal" then you are violating the law.

I personally prefer DC's rule (which simply required dogs to be on leashes of 4' or less in any public area) because it's a clearer bright line that is harder to argue with. But the rules have the same goal and that's to require dog owners to control their dogs on leashes in public areas. A dog on a long lead or a retractable leash cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Morally/ethically is a judgment call but since it's not cruel to leash a dog (and if it is then I guess we should ban dogs as pets because we cannot have dogs as pets without leash laws), I don't see the issue here.

Leash your dog, no retractable leashes, no long leads.

Not sure what your point is. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if that dog is 20 ft away and bites you. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash, however, without unwanted contact, has their dog leashed.

Whether this dog had a 4-6' leash or a retractable leash, though, didn't save it.

I'm reminded of the dog that was killed in front of its owner, while on a leash, in Falls Church, by a crazy man with a knife. Being on a leash didn't save that dog either.

You don’t seem to understand that the length of the leash is irrelevant. Your dog is legally under your control if it’s on a 100 ft leash and the nearest living thing to you and your dog is 300 feet away. However, you can be cited for unwanted contact if your dog bites a passerby on the sidewalk, even if you had your dog on a 3 foot leash. It’s not the length of the leash; it’s whether you had your dog sufficiently under control to prevent unwanted contact.

A dog on a 100 foot leash is, by definition, not "under control." Even if the nearest living thing is 300 ft away-- living things (including your dog) can move.

So length of leash matters because the shorter the leash, the more controlled your dog is.

In the example you give, there is actually a scenario where you would not be cited or fined, if you could prove your dog was under your control and only but the other dog/person because THEY came too close. If it was a dog, the other person might be cited. Though your dog would be deemed potentially dangerous because it bit someone.

The word "control" has actual meaning here. It's not just whatever you want it to mean. Control in this situation means the ability to prevent unwanted contact, which can only be achieved with a short leash.

No, dude, the length of the leash isn’t mandated by law. The only things mandated by law are that your dog must be leashed and that you’re at fault if your dog has unwanted contact with someone else, regardless of leash length.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been bitten once. By a lab.

Couldn't possibly have happened! Only pit bulls bite! Are you sure it actually bit you? Maybe it was 1% pit!!!

-pitbull psychosis sufferers

it's 35% of bites are pits or rotts
75% of fatal attacks are pits or rotts

Do your own research and provide stats that show i am wrong.

"I have no stats. If you want stats, you do the work I'm unwilling to do and unpack my ignorance for me. The reward for this unpaid labor will be me continuing to blather on about my crappy take, learning nothing, because I love my ignorance and have no good sense."

Tempting, but... no.

No thanks... any research I provide you you are going to make some inane assertion that the source is false. You were provide court cases all over the US that showed pits are dangerous, they were bread to be so, owners can't undo breeding... but "you are a volunteer" so that makes you an expert.

But you've only shown you are an expert in ignorance and the inability to take part in a conversation where you hold up your end of proving your point.

Your "research" does not show this point. At all. It also lumps all the dogs that 'look pit' under the same label. And here you are, lashing out at me instead of patching the holes in your own argument, which is why I already declined.

Be ignorant, if you like. I'd prefer you were also quiet, but you're not my responsibility (praise be).

The reality is pits were breed to fight and that is still in their breeding and your liberal heart is not going to stop the fact that this breed is dangerous (as well as a few others).

I don't think we should kill them but I do think their owners should have to prove every 2 years their dog can be in an area with other dogs and not attack.

If they attack they can't have the dog.

They also have a high prey drive and are easily triggered to attack in seemingly innocuous situations.

So do greyhounds

Let me know how many news articles you can find about greyhounds killing other dogs.

Took all of 20 seconds, slacker: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/moment-greyhounds-attack-and-kill-chihuahua-in-coventry-caught-on-camera/ar-BB1gX3CE

Complete with video. Dogs off leash, the on-leash dogs not under proper control... all the variables cited above, no "pit bulls"

Your move, chump.

Greyhounds have a high prey drive. But they didn't eat the poor Chihuahua.

More goalpost moving from the losers who can't just take the L and learn from it. You asked for an article about greyhounds killing dogs, and one was near-immediately provided for you. Do you adjust your position based on this new information? No.

This is a you problem.

No, I didn’t ask for an article; I said let me know [b]how many[b] you find. In fact, since pit bulls are 5 different breeds, feel free to compare the statistics for “pit bulls” versus sight hounds so it’s more fair.

I do not feel free to continue doing unpaid labor for your willfully-ignorant ass. I feel free to mock you, relentlessly, for your lack of critical thinking, arrogance, and stupidity.

So you're welcome to feel free to disenage, as I'll take further engagement as consent proceed as described.

Yes, the numbers will not compare favorably for pits, so you should duck out.

If anyone had these magical stats you keep alluding to, you'd have posted them. There'd be a comprehensive pinned post in this forum and all of you could just say "refer to the stats".

But they don't exist. Comments on DCUM do not facts make.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29245098/
Conclusion: Attacks by Pit Bull Terriers are more likely to cause severe morbidity than other breeds of dogs.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22235708/
more severe bites and injuries were observed in attacks from the pit-bull and Rottweiler breeds.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38767368/
The most common dog breed involved was Pitbull.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19696575/
Pit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds constitute the majority of canines implicated in these fatalities.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38371213/
The most common responsible breed were Pitbull types.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30473254/
pit bull was the most-identified breed

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29490720/
Pit-bull type was the most frequently implicated breed

OH but its cool because they created a new scalp repair technique for this woman's pitbull bite:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39016378/

1) sample size: 2 "pit bull terriers" but abstract also mentions rottweilers. Not sure if APBT or...? Not a solid citation
2) again, cites "pit bulls" and Rottweilers, no sample size numbers given in abstract
3) says "The most common dog breed involved was Pitbull (33.1%)" but doesn't specify actual breed, or provide reference statistics (how many households own pitbulls? How many pitbulls are there vs. other breeds, especially if you're calling mixes "pit bulls"?)
4) As you said, "Pit bull-type dogs, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds constitute the majority of canines implicated in these fatalities." Of note: 15-year study, 11 bites cited, no breakdown by breed beyond the above provided in abstract, and no breakdown beyond "pit bull type" (not a solidly anti-pit citation)
5) 171 cases, 26 "pitbull types, no breakdown given, no reference given for the other breeds. info strongly suggests patients were younger children with their face in their family dog's face (i.e. not properly supervised). Not an indictment of pitbulls, and still missing the reference material re: total # of pitbulls (all of them will be; nobody has ever been able to provide this).
6) 102 patients, pit bull was the most-identified breed (36.2%) (pit bull is not a breed; this doesn't clearly indicate breed of dog responsible), "Parental presence was reported in 43.6% of cases" (see previous), "Conclusions: Preschool-aged children are more likely to be injured by dog bites, and dog bites can result in major injury to the head and neck region. Prevention efforts should focus on dog training, public education (children and adults), vigilant adult supervision, and a zero-tolerance policy."
7) 475 cases, Pit-bull type was the most frequently implicated breed (27%) (pit bull type is still not a breed, and there's a difference, and it does matter), again, no stats provided showing total number of 'pit bull type dogs" owned vs. number causing problems, nor relevant data for the other breeds studied/cited (this means that while your case studies are medically relevant, they're not equally relevant for blaming pit bulls. They're great data on bite damage, which doesn't equate evenly to actual threat levels. Do you need me to spell this out further?) "Conclusions: Dog bites most commonly occurred in the hands and upper extremities, and carried an infection risk of approximately 10%. Large, muscular breeds were the most frequently implicated. The effectiveness of breed-specific legislation remains unclear, but educational programs for dog owners, children, and health care workers may help decrease the number and severity of attacks."
8) A woman was attacked by her pet "pit bull". Replace with GSD, and it changes nothing. Not an indictment of "pit bulls"

SO you googled, and found some PubMed abstracts about pitbull bites. And yes, "pit bulls" (all 5 breeds) do bite, because they're dogs, and all dogs can and do bite. So well done you, you found some decent citations.

Your citations, as I pointed out above, lack the context for the argument you're making, which is that pitbulls are the most dangerous breed, or even any more dangerous than other breeds. The statistics shown do say that they are more often represented in bite statistics than other breeds. The statistics shown do not offer supportive information about the total number of "pit bulls" vs. Rottweilers, GSDs, etc. If there are equal numbers of all the breeds, your stats can be considered supportive of your argument as-is. But that's a really big assumption, and given how many people are ranting on this thread about "evil pitbulls everywhere", I don't think you'd even have the public opinion support for that position.

And I will keep pointing this out every time one of you pulls a random PubMed citation or clickbait news article to support your position that "pit bulls" are somehow more problematic than other large, muscular dog breeds. I have yet to see one credible resource that actually says that. I've seen a lot of inference drawn from marginally-relevant articles, like the ones you cite, but that's not what the facts are actually saying.

Find the charts of how many individual dogs of each of the dog breeds there are, and we might be able to get to facts. But with people lumping "pit bull types" all together, those facts still won't be accurate. There's a lot of difference between XL bullies and staffies and mutts, and you just don't have the data to support the claims about "pit bulls" you keep trying to make.

I do appreciate the sound citations, though. Thanks for not citing, like, petsmart or pinterest or the clickbait NY Post (which has happened all over the other thread about hating pit bulls).

All of which is to say: your cites DO point to crappy owners. Repeatedly. On this, we are agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we discuss the pit bull eating the dead dog in the yard??? I’ve had dogs my entire life and have never known one to eat a dead animal. What the hell is that? I’ve even had retrieving bird dogs. Was this dog starved? I just can’t imagine another dog killing and eating another.

Any IDs on the breed of the leashed dog that the pit killed?

This happened in my neighborhood, and I know the owners of the victim dog, a very sweet small/medium doodle mix that was always leashed on walks. The grapevine says the aggressor dog was a pit that apparently a neighborhood family was fostering (and doing a shockingly poor job of that, clearly).

People are out walking their dogs constantly around here, and everyone is shaken up and feeling horrible that our neighbor and her lovely dog had to endure this. We are all thinking about what we would or should have done if it happened to us. Does everyone else walk around their neighborhoods with bear or pepper spray just in case? Are those actually effective in dog attack scenarios?

Oh, goody. Gossip. That'll help.

This information is actually responsive to the thread topic, unlike the bizarre rants from the pit apologists.

I’m curious about what others do, if anything, to be prepared should they or their dog be attacked by a dangerous animal in their neighborhood?

1) leash your dog (no retractable leashes. 6ft max, 4 is better)
2) keep your dog under your control (by your side, quiet, focused, not wandering off-trail, not barking at passers-by)
3) stay alert and scan for hazards. You are on-duty. No headphones, no phone, stay present, eyes scanning for hazards (the more time you have to respond, the better your response is likely to be)
4) carry dog repel spray (something like this: https://www.amazon.com/REPELLENT-Repeller-Agressive-Attack-BICYCLE/dp/B01FYAIE80) and/or pepper spray and, most importantly, know how to use it
5) carry a walking stick or other 'break stick' in case you need to break up a fight so you're not using your hands/arms

But really? the first 3 will keep you safe. Most people invite trouble with an off-leash dog, or a dog that's too far outside their control, don't train their dogs not to bark ("don't start none, won't be none" applies in the dog world, too), and are half up their own backsides, talking on the phone, or texting, or...

Are you saying that if you ‘invite trouble’ by say, having your dog on a long lead while hiking that it’s okay that your ‘sweet pittie’ mauls that person and their dog to death?

Yes, fool, if you're inviting trouble by not having control of your dog, you become complicit in what happens to your dog. Same as if they get bit by a snake, get into poison ivy, or snap a leg in that gopher hole you would've avoided by having them on trail with you, like you should've.

The new dog owner's mentality of "close enough" isn't. There are rules for a reason, and if you care at all about your pet's well-being you should follow them. There are all sorts of actual liabilities you'll avoid by doing so; you don't need to make up horror stories about packs of mauling pit bulls.

Y'all treat this like it's playtime, when it's actually supposed to be taking responsibility for a living creature. No pride, no sense, just everything's a playzone and you can half-ass it.

The two women, the subject of this thread, were injured trying to save their poor doodle from the pit mix. Whether their doodle was heeling or 4 feet away from them, they couldn't save it and were injured themselves.

You're right that pitbulls are not "playtime". They are dangerous. And they are ubiquitous, on every neighborhood. Because of rescues.

You were there? You saw it? The two women weren't gossiping (like you) while their dog on a retractable leash started barking at an unleashed dog? You're sure of it?

No, you're not, because no, you weren't. And this is why nobody takes you haters seriously. You're so incredibly willing to talk out your arse and claim facts not in evidence, and you speak as if you know when you clearly do not.

Dog ownership is not playtime. Not any breed, not any size, not at any point. If you have different standards for different breeds, you're the problem. All dogs can bite, should be assumed to be unfriendly unless known, and all dog handlers should be focused on their dog(s), which should be under the owner's responsible control at all times.

This is how we keep ourselves, our dogs, and our neighbors safe.

And those young women shouldn’t wear such revealing clothes either. Basically inviting the rapists over to her.

No. One is an example of humans minding their business: women are allowed to dress however they please within the law. The other is an example of people not following the law (dogs are supposed to be under their owners control at all times).

On a leash is in control

On a retractable leash 10 feet away while you're on your phone is not in control.

Legally, morally, and ethically, it is.

Wrong on all counts (DP here).

Here is the Montgomery County rule regarding unwanted contact from dogs:

Unwanted Contact -
The pet owner must prevent unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal that occurs outside the owner’s property that may cause alarm in a reasonable person, such as biting, chasing, tracking, inhibiting movement, or jumping. ($500 fine)

Since retractable leashes and leashes over 4-6 feet do not adequately prevent "unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal" then you are violating the law.

I personally prefer DC's rule (which simply required dogs to be on leashes of 4' or less in any public area) because it's a clearer bright line that is harder to argue with. But the rules have the same goal and that's to require dog owners to control their dogs on leashes in public areas. A dog on a long lead or a retractable leash cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Morally/ethically is a judgment call but since it's not cruel to leash a dog (and if it is then I guess we should ban dogs as pets because we cannot have dogs as pets without leash laws), I don't see the issue here.

Leash your dog, no retractable leashes, no long leads.

Not sure what your point is. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if that dog is 20 ft away and bites you. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash, however, without unwanted contact, has their dog leashed.

Whether this dog had a 4-6' leash or a retractable leash, though, didn't save it.

I'm reminded of the dog that was killed in front of its owner, while on a leash, in Falls Church, by a crazy man with a knife. Being on a leash didn't save that dog either.

The goal of a leash is not to protect the dog. The goal of the leash is to protect everyone else from the dog. We have different laws to address crazy people with knives -- these laws, unfortunately, are not 100% effective.

But actually, technically, a dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if they are unable to prevent unwanted contact from the dog. Their dog doesn't have to be 10 feet away and they don't have to bit anyone. If the dog is not under the owner's control, they owner is in violation of the law. I can film you walking your dog on the long leash and report you to authorities.

I'll give you this: MoCo does not explicitly ban retractable leashes. So if you keep the retractable leash retracted to a short distance and never unlock so the dog can extend it (in other words use it the way a shorter leash would function and only that way) then you might not be in violation of the law. Though I think this is stupid since retractable leashes can fail and the way the handles work make them easier for a dog to rip out of an owner's hands, so I don't get why you wouldn't just get a regular leash. Also retractable leashes are explicitly banned a lot of places (because they don't work like leashes!) so you need to be ready to check the local laws if you take your dog outside the county. Good luck!

Honey, I live in Nova, not Moco. But I can look up their leash laws.

You are blaming these women for allowing their dog to be killed by an officer leash dog, and getting injured in the process. It's bizarre, the lengths you are going to in defending the pit bull.

No I'm not blaming these women for anything. And do not "Honey" me.

We don't know what happened with the dog attack. We don't know how the dog who was mauled was behaving or how he was controlled prior to the attack. There's no point in arguing it because we don't know

What I'm saying is that retractable leashes are not responsible. They don't allow you to control your dog. This is why they are banned many places. A lot of newer dig owners might not realize the problem with them (they just think "oh great if the leash retracts then I can let my dog wander but still pull him back if I need to" not understanding that a retractable leash is not a good way to do that). So I am attempting to educate people in the problem with retractable leashes and explain why under MoCo law, you are much better off with a shorter, solid leash and training your dog for recall.

Why is there an implication that the dead dog deserved it??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we discuss the pit bull eating the dead dog in the yard??? I’ve had dogs my entire life and have never known one to eat a dead animal. What the hell is that? I’ve even had retrieving bird dogs. Was this dog starved? I just can’t imagine another dog killing and eating another.

Any IDs on the breed of the leashed dog that the pit killed?

This happened in my neighborhood, and I know the owners of the victim dog, a very sweet small/medium doodle mix that was always leashed on walks. The grapevine says the aggressor dog was a pit that apparently a neighborhood family was fostering (and doing a shockingly poor job of that, clearly).

People are out walking their dogs constantly around here, and everyone is shaken up and feeling horrible that our neighbor and her lovely dog had to endure this. We are all thinking about what we would or should have done if it happened to us. Does everyone else walk around their neighborhoods with bear or pepper spray just in case? Are those actually effective in dog attack scenarios?

Oh, goody. Gossip. That'll help.

This information is actually responsive to the thread topic, unlike the bizarre rants from the pit apologists.

I’m curious about what others do, if anything, to be prepared should they or their dog be attacked by a dangerous animal in their neighborhood?

1) leash your dog (no retractable leashes. 6ft max, 4 is better)
2) keep your dog under your control (by your side, quiet, focused, not wandering off-trail, not barking at passers-by)
3) stay alert and scan for hazards. You are on-duty. No headphones, no phone, stay present, eyes scanning for hazards (the more time you have to respond, the better your response is likely to be)
4) carry dog repel spray (something like this: https://www.amazon.com/REPELLENT-Repeller-Agressive-Attack-BICYCLE/dp/B01FYAIE80) and/or pepper spray and, most importantly, know how to use it
5) carry a walking stick or other 'break stick' in case you need to break up a fight so you're not using your hands/arms

But really? the first 3 will keep you safe. Most people invite trouble with an off-leash dog, or a dog that's too far outside their control, don't train their dogs not to bark ("don't start none, won't be none" applies in the dog world, too), and are half up their own backsides, talking on the phone, or texting, or...

Are you saying that if you ‘invite trouble’ by say, having your dog on a long lead while hiking that it’s okay that your ‘sweet pittie’ mauls that person and their dog to death?

Yes, fool, if you're inviting trouble by not having control of your dog, you become complicit in what happens to your dog. Same as if they get bit by a snake, get into poison ivy, or snap a leg in that gopher hole you would've avoided by having them on trail with you, like you should've.

The new dog owner's mentality of "close enough" isn't. There are rules for a reason, and if you care at all about your pet's well-being you should follow them. There are all sorts of actual liabilities you'll avoid by doing so; you don't need to make up horror stories about packs of mauling pit bulls.

Y'all treat this like it's playtime, when it's actually supposed to be taking responsibility for a living creature. No pride, no sense, just everything's a playzone and you can half-ass it.

The two women, the subject of this thread, were injured trying to save their poor doodle from the pit mix. Whether their doodle was heeling or 4 feet away from them, they couldn't save it and were injured themselves.

You're right that pitbulls are not "playtime". They are dangerous. And they are ubiquitous, on every neighborhood. Because of rescues.

You were there? You saw it? The two women weren't gossiping (like you) while their dog on a retractable leash started barking at an unleashed dog? You're sure of it?

No, you're not, because no, you weren't. And this is why nobody takes you haters seriously. You're so incredibly willing to talk out your arse and claim facts not in evidence, and you speak as if you know when you clearly do not.

Dog ownership is not playtime. Not any breed, not any size, not at any point. If you have different standards for different breeds, you're the problem. All dogs can bite, should be assumed to be unfriendly unless known, and all dog handlers should be focused on their dog(s), which should be under the owner's responsible control at all times.

This is how we keep ourselves, our dogs, and our neighbors safe.

And those young women shouldn’t wear such revealing clothes either. Basically inviting the rapists over to her.

No. One is an example of humans minding their business: women are allowed to dress however they please within the law. The other is an example of people not following the law (dogs are supposed to be under their owners control at all times).

On a leash is in control

On a retractable leash 10 feet away while you're on your phone is not in control.

Legally, morally, and ethically, it is.

Wrong on all counts (DP here).

Here is the Montgomery County rule regarding unwanted contact from dogs:

Unwanted Contact -
The pet owner must prevent unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal that occurs outside the owner’s property that may cause alarm in a reasonable person, such as biting, chasing, tracking, inhibiting movement, or jumping. ($500 fine)

Since retractable leashes and leashes over 4-6 feet do not adequately prevent "unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal" then you are violating the law.

I personally prefer DC's rule (which simply required dogs to be on leashes of 4' or less in any public area) because it's a clearer bright line that is harder to argue with. But the rules have the same goal and that's to require dog owners to control their dogs on leashes in public areas. A dog on a long lead or a retractable leash cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Morally/ethically is a judgment call but since it's not cruel to leash a dog (and if it is then I guess we should ban dogs as pets because we cannot have dogs as pets without leash laws), I don't see the issue here.

Leash your dog, no retractable leashes, no long leads.

Not sure what your point is. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if that dog is 20 ft away and bites you. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash, however, without unwanted contact, has their dog leashed.

Whether this dog had a 4-6' leash or a retractable leash, though, didn't save it.

I'm reminded of the dog that was killed in front of its owner, while on a leash, in Falls Church, by a crazy man with a knife. Being on a leash didn't save that dog either.

The goal of a leash is not to protect the dog. The goal of the leash is to protect everyone else from the dog. We have different laws to address crazy people with knives -- these laws, unfortunately, are not 100% effective.

But actually, technically, a dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if they are unable to prevent unwanted contact from the dog. Their dog doesn't have to be 10 feet away and they don't have to bit anyone. If the dog is not under the owner's control, they owner is in violation of the law. I can film you walking your dog on the long leash and report you to authorities.

I'll give you this: MoCo does not explicitly ban retractable leashes. So if you keep the retractable leash retracted to a short distance and never unlock so the dog can extend it (in other words use it the way a shorter leash would function and only that way) then you might not be in violation of the law. Though I think this is stupid since retractable leashes can fail and the way the handles work make them easier for a dog to rip out of an owner's hands, so I don't get why you wouldn't just get a regular leash. Also retractable leashes are explicitly banned a lot of places (because they don't work like leashes!) so you need to be ready to check the local laws if you take your dog outside the county. Good luck!

Honey, I live in Nova, not Moco. But I can look up their leash laws.

You are blaming these women for allowing their dog to be killed by an officer leash dog, and getting injured in the process. It's bizarre, the lengths you are going to in defending the pit bull.

No I'm not blaming these women for anything. And do not "Honey" me.

We don't know what happened with the dog attack. We don't know how the dog who was mauled was behaving or how he was controlled prior to the attack. There's no point in arguing it because we don't know

What I'm saying is that retractable leashes are not responsible. They don't allow you to control your dog. This is why they are banned many places. A lot of newer dig owners might not realize the problem with them (they just think "oh great if the leash retracts then I can let my dog wander but still pull him back if I need to" not understanding that a retractable leash is not a good way to do that). So I am attempting to educate people in the problem with retractable leashes and explain why under MoCo law, you are much better off with a shorter, solid leash and training your dog for recall.

Why is there an implication that the dead dog deserved it??

No one is implying the dead dog deserved it. Even if the dog provoked the attack somehow, it would be the fault if the owner. Dogs have no moral or legal culpability for their behavior. They are dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we discuss the pit bull eating the dead dog in the yard??? I’ve had dogs my entire life and have never known one to eat a dead animal. What the hell is that? I’ve even had retrieving bird dogs. Was this dog starved? I just can’t imagine another dog killing and eating another.

Any IDs on the breed of the leashed dog that the pit killed?

This happened in my neighborhood, and I know the owners of the victim dog, a very sweet small/medium doodle mix that was always leashed on walks. The grapevine says the aggressor dog was a pit that apparently a neighborhood family was fostering (and doing a shockingly poor job of that, clearly).

People are out walking their dogs constantly around here, and everyone is shaken up and feeling horrible that our neighbor and her lovely dog had to endure this. We are all thinking about what we would or should have done if it happened to us. Does everyone else walk around their neighborhoods with bear or pepper spray just in case? Are those actually effective in dog attack scenarios?

Oh, goody. Gossip. That'll help.

This information is actually responsive to the thread topic, unlike the bizarre rants from the pit apologists.

I’m curious about what others do, if anything, to be prepared should they or their dog be attacked by a dangerous animal in their neighborhood?

1) leash your dog (no retractable leashes. 6ft max, 4 is better)
2) keep your dog under your control (by your side, quiet, focused, not wandering off-trail, not barking at passers-by)
3) stay alert and scan for hazards. You are on-duty. No headphones, no phone, stay present, eyes scanning for hazards (the more time you have to respond, the better your response is likely to be)
4) carry dog repel spray (something like this: https://www.amazon.com/REPELLENT-Repeller-Agressive-Attack-BICYCLE/dp/B01FYAIE80) and/or pepper spray and, most importantly, know how to use it
5) carry a walking stick or other 'break stick' in case you need to break up a fight so you're not using your hands/arms

But really? the first 3 will keep you safe. Most people invite trouble with an off-leash dog, or a dog that's too far outside their control, don't train their dogs not to bark ("don't start none, won't be none" applies in the dog world, too), and are half up their own backsides, talking on the phone, or texting, or...

Are you saying that if you ‘invite trouble’ by say, having your dog on a long lead while hiking that it’s okay that your ‘sweet pittie’ mauls that person and their dog to death?

Yes, fool, if you're inviting trouble by not having control of your dog, you become complicit in what happens to your dog. Same as if they get bit by a snake, get into poison ivy, or snap a leg in that gopher hole you would've avoided by having them on trail with you, like you should've.

The new dog owner's mentality of "close enough" isn't. There are rules for a reason, and if you care at all about your pet's well-being you should follow them. There are all sorts of actual liabilities you'll avoid by doing so; you don't need to make up horror stories about packs of mauling pit bulls.

Y'all treat this like it's playtime, when it's actually supposed to be taking responsibility for a living creature. No pride, no sense, just everything's a playzone and you can half-ass it.

The two women, the subject of this thread, were injured trying to save their poor doodle from the pit mix. Whether their doodle was heeling or 4 feet away from them, they couldn't save it and were injured themselves.

You're right that pitbulls are not "playtime". They are dangerous. And they are ubiquitous, on every neighborhood. Because of rescues.

You were there? You saw it? The two women weren't gossiping (like you) while their dog on a retractable leash started barking at an unleashed dog? You're sure of it?

No, you're not, because no, you weren't. And this is why nobody takes you haters seriously. You're so incredibly willing to talk out your arse and claim facts not in evidence, and you speak as if you know when you clearly do not.

Dog ownership is not playtime. Not any breed, not any size, not at any point. If you have different standards for different breeds, you're the problem. All dogs can bite, should be assumed to be unfriendly unless known, and all dog handlers should be focused on their dog(s), which should be under the owner's responsible control at all times.

This is how we keep ourselves, our dogs, and our neighbors safe.

And those young women shouldn’t wear such revealing clothes either. Basically inviting the rapists over to her.

No. One is an example of humans minding their business: women are allowed to dress however they please within the law. The other is an example of people not following the law (dogs are supposed to be under their owners control at all times).

On a leash is in control

On a retractable leash 10 feet away while you're on your phone is not in control.

Legally, morally, and ethically, it is.

Wrong on all counts (DP here).

Here is the Montgomery County rule regarding unwanted contact from dogs:

Unwanted Contact -
The pet owner must prevent unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal that occurs outside the owner’s property that may cause alarm in a reasonable person, such as biting, chasing, tracking, inhibiting movement, or jumping. ($500 fine)

Since retractable leashes and leashes over 4-6 feet do not adequately prevent "unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal" then you are violating the law.

I personally prefer DC's rule (which simply required dogs to be on leashes of 4' or less in any public area) because it's a clearer bright line that is harder to argue with. But the rules have the same goal and that's to require dog owners to control their dogs on leashes in public areas. A dog on a long lead or a retractable leash cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Morally/ethically is a judgment call but since it's not cruel to leash a dog (and if it is then I guess we should ban dogs as pets because we cannot have dogs as pets without leash laws), I don't see the issue here.

Leash your dog, no retractable leashes, no long leads.

Not sure what your point is. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if that dog is 20 ft away and bites you. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash, however, without unwanted contact, has their dog leashed.

Whether this dog had a 4-6' leash or a retractable leash, though, didn't save it.

I'm reminded of the dog that was killed in front of its owner, while on a leash, in Falls Church, by a crazy man with a knife. Being on a leash didn't save that dog either.

The goal of a leash is not to protect the dog. The goal of the leash is to protect everyone else from the dog. We have different laws to address crazy people with knives -- these laws, unfortunately, are not 100% effective.

But actually, technically, a dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if they are unable to prevent unwanted contact from the dog. Their dog doesn't have to be 10 feet away and they don't have to bit anyone. If the dog is not under the owner's control, they owner is in violation of the law. I can film you walking your dog on the long leash and report you to authorities.

I'll give you this: MoCo does not explicitly ban retractable leashes. So if you keep the retractable leash retracted to a short distance and never unlock so the dog can extend it (in other words use it the way a shorter leash would function and only that way) then you might not be in violation of the law. Though I think this is stupid since retractable leashes can fail and the way the handles work make them easier for a dog to rip out of an owner's hands, so I don't get why you wouldn't just get a regular leash. Also retractable leashes are explicitly banned a lot of places (because they don't work like leashes!) so you need to be ready to check the local laws if you take your dog outside the county. Good luck!

Honey, I live in Nova, not Moco. But I can look up their leash laws.

You are blaming these women for allowing their dog to be killed by an officer leash dog, and getting injured in the process. It's bizarre, the lengths you are going to in defending the pit bull.

No I'm not blaming these women for anything. And do not "Honey" me.

We don't know what happened with the dog attack. We don't know how the dog who was mauled was behaving or how he was controlled prior to the attack. There's no point in arguing it because we don't know

What I'm saying is that retractable leashes are not responsible. They don't allow you to control your dog. This is why they are banned many places. A lot of newer dig owners might not realize the problem with them (they just think "oh great if the leash retracts then I can let my dog wander but still pull him back if I need to" not understanding that a retractable leash is not a good way to do that). So I am attempting to educate people in the problem with retractable leashes and explain why under MoCo law, you are much better off with a shorter, solid leash and training your dog for recall.

Why is there an implication that the dead dog deserved it??

There isn't. That's an interpretation you're bringing to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we discuss the pit bull eating the dead dog in the yard??? I’ve had dogs my entire life and have never known one to eat a dead animal. What the hell is that? I’ve even had retrieving bird dogs. Was this dog starved? I just can’t imagine another dog killing and eating another.

Any IDs on the breed of the leashed dog that the pit killed?

This happened in my neighborhood, and I know the owners of the victim dog, a very sweet small/medium doodle mix that was always leashed on walks. The grapevine says the aggressor dog was a pit that apparently a neighborhood family was fostering (and doing a shockingly poor job of that, clearly).

People are out walking their dogs constantly around here, and everyone is shaken up and feeling horrible that our neighbor and her lovely dog had to endure this. We are all thinking about what we would or should have done if it happened to us. Does everyone else walk around their neighborhoods with bear or pepper spray just in case? Are those actually effective in dog attack scenarios?

Oh, goody. Gossip. That'll help.

This information is actually responsive to the thread topic, unlike the bizarre rants from the pit apologists.

I’m curious about what others do, if anything, to be prepared should they or their dog be attacked by a dangerous animal in their neighborhood?

1) leash your dog (no retractable leashes. 6ft max, 4 is better)
2) keep your dog under your control (by your side, quiet, focused, not wandering off-trail, not barking at passers-by)
3) stay alert and scan for hazards. You are on-duty. No headphones, no phone, stay present, eyes scanning for hazards (the more time you have to respond, the better your response is likely to be)
4) carry dog repel spray (something like this: https://www.amazon.com/REPELLENT-Repeller-Agressive-Attack-BICYCLE/dp/B01FYAIE80) and/or pepper spray and, most importantly, know how to use it
5) carry a walking stick or other 'break stick' in case you need to break up a fight so you're not using your hands/arms

But really? the first 3 will keep you safe. Most people invite trouble with an off-leash dog, or a dog that's too far outside their control, don't train their dogs not to bark ("don't start none, won't be none" applies in the dog world, too), and are half up their own backsides, talking on the phone, or texting, or...

Are you saying that if you ‘invite trouble’ by say, having your dog on a long lead while hiking that it’s okay that your ‘sweet pittie’ mauls that person and their dog to death?

Yes, fool, if you're inviting trouble by not having control of your dog, you become complicit in what happens to your dog. Same as if they get bit by a snake, get into poison ivy, or snap a leg in that gopher hole you would've avoided by having them on trail with you, like you should've.

The new dog owner's mentality of "close enough" isn't. There are rules for a reason, and if you care at all about your pet's well-being you should follow them. There are all sorts of actual liabilities you'll avoid by doing so; you don't need to make up horror stories about packs of mauling pit bulls.

Y'all treat this like it's playtime, when it's actually supposed to be taking responsibility for a living creature. No pride, no sense, just everything's a playzone and you can half-ass it.

The two women, the subject of this thread, were injured trying to save their poor doodle from the pit mix. Whether their doodle was heeling or 4 feet away from them, they couldn't save it and were injured themselves.

You're right that pitbulls are not "playtime". They are dangerous. And they are ubiquitous, on every neighborhood. Because of rescues.

You were there? You saw it? The two women weren't gossiping (like you) while their dog on a retractable leash started barking at an unleashed dog? You're sure of it?

No, you're not, because no, you weren't. And this is why nobody takes you haters seriously. You're so incredibly willing to talk out your arse and claim facts not in evidence, and you speak as if you know when you clearly do not.

Dog ownership is not playtime. Not any breed, not any size, not at any point. If you have different standards for different breeds, you're the problem. All dogs can bite, should be assumed to be unfriendly unless known, and all dog handlers should be focused on their dog(s), which should be under the owner's responsible control at all times.

This is how we keep ourselves, our dogs, and our neighbors safe.

And those young women shouldn’t wear such revealing clothes either. Basically inviting the rapists over to her.

No. One is an example of humans minding their business: women are allowed to dress however they please within the law. The other is an example of people not following the law (dogs are supposed to be under their owners control at all times).

On a leash is in control

On a retractable leash 10 feet away while you're on your phone is not in control.

Legally, morally, and ethically, it is.

Wrong on all counts (DP here).

Here is the Montgomery County rule regarding unwanted contact from dogs:

Unwanted Contact -
The pet owner must prevent unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal that occurs outside the owner’s property that may cause alarm in a reasonable person, such as biting, chasing, tracking, inhibiting movement, or jumping. ($500 fine)

Since retractable leashes and leashes over 4-6 feet do not adequately prevent "unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal" then you are violating the law.

I personally prefer DC's rule (which simply required dogs to be on leashes of 4' or less in any public area) because it's a clearer bright line that is harder to argue with. But the rules have the same goal and that's to require dog owners to control their dogs on leashes in public areas. A dog on a long lead or a retractable leash cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Morally/ethically is a judgment call but since it's not cruel to leash a dog (and if it is then I guess we should ban dogs as pets because we cannot have dogs as pets without leash laws), I don't see the issue here.

Leash your dog, no retractable leashes, no long leads.

Not sure what your point is. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if that dog is 20 ft away and bites you. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash, however, without unwanted contact, has their dog leashed.

Whether this dog had a 4-6' leash or a retractable leash, though, didn't save it.

I'm reminded of the dog that was killed in front of its owner, while on a leash, in Falls Church, by a crazy man with a knife. Being on a leash didn't save that dog either.

The goal of a leash is not to protect the dog. The goal of the leash is to protect everyone else from the dog. We have different laws to address crazy people with knives -- these laws, unfortunately, are not 100% effective.

But actually, technically, a dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if they are unable to prevent unwanted contact from the dog. Their dog doesn't have to be 10 feet away and they don't have to bit anyone. If the dog is not under the owner's control, they owner is in violation of the law. I can film you walking your dog on the long leash and report you to authorities.

I'll give you this: MoCo does not explicitly ban retractable leashes. So if you keep the retractable leash retracted to a short distance and never unlock so the dog can extend it (in other words use it the way a shorter leash would function and only that way) then you might not be in violation of the law. Though I think this is stupid since retractable leashes can fail and the way the handles work make them easier for a dog to rip out of an owner's hands, so I don't get why you wouldn't just get a regular leash. Also retractable leashes are explicitly banned a lot of places (because they don't work like leashes!) so you need to be ready to check the local laws if you take your dog outside the county. Good luck!

Honey, I live in Nova, not Moco. But I can look up their leash laws.

You are blaming these women for allowing their dog to be killed by an officer leash dog, and getting injured in the process. It's bizarre, the lengths you are going to in defending the pit bull.

No I'm not blaming these women for anything. And do not "Honey" me.

We don't know what happened with the dog attack. We don't know how the dog who was mauled was behaving or how he was controlled prior to the attack. There's no point in arguing it because we don't know

What I'm saying is that retractable leashes are not responsible. They don't allow you to control your dog. This is why they are banned many places. A lot of newer dig owners might not realize the problem with them (they just think "oh great if the leash retracts then I can let my dog wander but still pull him back if I need to" not understanding that a retractable leash is not a good way to do that). So I am attempting to educate people in the problem with retractable leashes and explain why under MoCo law, you are much better off with a shorter, solid leash and training your dog for recall.

Why is there an implication that the dead dog deserved it??

No one is implying the dead dog deserved it. Even if the dog provoked the attack somehow, it would be the fault if the owner. Dogs have no moral or legal culpability for their behavior. They are dogs.

100% accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we discuss the pit bull eating the dead dog in the yard??? I’ve had dogs my entire life and have never known one to eat a dead animal. What the hell is that? I’ve even had retrieving bird dogs. Was this dog starved? I just can’t imagine another dog killing and eating another.

Any IDs on the breed of the leashed dog that the pit killed?

This happened in my neighborhood, and I know the owners of the victim dog, a very sweet small/medium doodle mix that was always leashed on walks. The grapevine says the aggressor dog was a pit that apparently a neighborhood family was fostering (and doing a shockingly poor job of that, clearly).

People are out walking their dogs constantly around here, and everyone is shaken up and feeling horrible that our neighbor and her lovely dog had to endure this. We are all thinking about what we would or should have done if it happened to us. Does everyone else walk around their neighborhoods with bear or pepper spray just in case? Are those actually effective in dog attack scenarios?

Oh, goody. Gossip. That'll help.

This information is actually responsive to the thread topic, unlike the bizarre rants from the pit apologists.

I’m curious about what others do, if anything, to be prepared should they or their dog be attacked by a dangerous animal in their neighborhood?

1) leash your dog (no retractable leashes. 6ft max, 4 is better)
2) keep your dog under your control (by your side, quiet, focused, not wandering off-trail, not barking at passers-by)
3) stay alert and scan for hazards. You are on-duty. No headphones, no phone, stay present, eyes scanning for hazards (the more time you have to respond, the better your response is likely to be)
4) carry dog repel spray (something like this: https://www.amazon.com/REPELLENT-Repeller-Agressive-Attack-BICYCLE/dp/B01FYAIE80) and/or pepper spray and, most importantly, know how to use it
5) carry a walking stick or other 'break stick' in case you need to break up a fight so you're not using your hands/arms

But really? the first 3 will keep you safe. Most people invite trouble with an off-leash dog, or a dog that's too far outside their control, don't train their dogs not to bark ("don't start none, won't be none" applies in the dog world, too), and are half up their own backsides, talking on the phone, or texting, or...

Are you saying that if you ‘invite trouble’ by say, having your dog on a long lead while hiking that it’s okay that your ‘sweet pittie’ mauls that person and their dog to death?

Yes, fool, if you're inviting trouble by not having control of your dog, you become complicit in what happens to your dog. Same as if they get bit by a snake, get into poison ivy, or snap a leg in that gopher hole you would've avoided by having them on trail with you, like you should've.

The new dog owner's mentality of "close enough" isn't. There are rules for a reason, and if you care at all about your pet's well-being you should follow them. There are all sorts of actual liabilities you'll avoid by doing so; you don't need to make up horror stories about packs of mauling pit bulls.

Y'all treat this like it's playtime, when it's actually supposed to be taking responsibility for a living creature. No pride, no sense, just everything's a playzone and you can half-ass it.

The two women, the subject of this thread, were injured trying to save their poor doodle from the pit mix. Whether their doodle was heeling or 4 feet away from them, they couldn't save it and were injured themselves.

You're right that pitbulls are not "playtime". They are dangerous. And they are ubiquitous, on every neighborhood. Because of rescues.

You were there? You saw it? The two women weren't gossiping (like you) while their dog on a retractable leash started barking at an unleashed dog? You're sure of it?

No, you're not, because no, you weren't. And this is why nobody takes you haters seriously. You're so incredibly willing to talk out your arse and claim facts not in evidence, and you speak as if you know when you clearly do not.

Dog ownership is not playtime. Not any breed, not any size, not at any point. If you have different standards for different breeds, you're the problem. All dogs can bite, should be assumed to be unfriendly unless known, and all dog handlers should be focused on their dog(s), which should be under the owner's responsible control at all times.

This is how we keep ourselves, our dogs, and our neighbors safe.

And those young women shouldn’t wear such revealing clothes either. Basically inviting the rapists over to her.

No. One is an example of humans minding their business: women are allowed to dress however they please within the law. The other is an example of people not following the law (dogs are supposed to be under their owners control at all times).

On a leash is in control

On a retractable leash 10 feet away while you're on your phone is not in control.

Legally, morally, and ethically, it is.

Wrong on all counts (DP here).

Here is the Montgomery County rule regarding unwanted contact from dogs:

Unwanted Contact -
The pet owner must prevent unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal that occurs outside the owner’s property that may cause alarm in a reasonable person, such as biting, chasing, tracking, inhibiting movement, or jumping. ($500 fine)

Since retractable leashes and leashes over 4-6 feet do not adequately prevent "unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal" then you are violating the law.

I personally prefer DC's rule (which simply required dogs to be on leashes of 4' or less in any public area) because it's a clearer bright line that is harder to argue with. But the rules have the same goal and that's to require dog owners to control their dogs on leashes in public areas. A dog on a long lead or a retractable leash cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Morally/ethically is a judgment call but since it's not cruel to leash a dog (and if it is then I guess we should ban dogs as pets because we cannot have dogs as pets without leash laws), I don't see the issue here.

Leash your dog, no retractable leashes, no long leads.

Not sure what your point is. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if that dog is 20 ft away and bites you. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash, however, without unwanted contact, has their dog leashed.

Whether this dog had a 4-6' leash or a retractable leash, though, didn't save it.

I'm reminded of the dog that was killed in front of its owner, while on a leash, in Falls Church, by a crazy man with a knife. Being on a leash didn't save that dog either.

The goal of a leash is not to protect the dog. The goal of the leash is to protect everyone else from the dog. We have different laws to address crazy people with knives -- these laws, unfortunately, are not 100% effective.

But actually, technically, a dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if they are unable to prevent unwanted contact from the dog. Their dog doesn't have to be 10 feet away and they don't have to bit anyone. If the dog is not under the owner's control, they owner is in violation of the law. I can film you walking your dog on the long leash and report you to authorities.

I'll give you this: MoCo does not explicitly ban retractable leashes. So if you keep the retractable leash retracted to a short distance and never unlock so the dog can extend it (in other words use it the way a shorter leash would function and only that way) then you might not be in violation of the law. Though I think this is stupid since retractable leashes can fail and the way the handles work make them easier for a dog to rip out of an owner's hands, so I don't get why you wouldn't just get a regular leash. Also retractable leashes are explicitly banned a lot of places (because they don't work like leashes!) so you need to be ready to check the local laws if you take your dog outside the county. Good luck!

Honey, I live in Nova, not Moco. But I can look up their leash laws.

You are blaming these women for allowing their dog to be killed by an officer leash dog, and getting injured in the process. It's bizarre, the lengths you are going to in defending the pit bull.

No I'm not blaming these women for anything. And do not "Honey" me.

We don't know what happened with the dog attack. We don't know how the dog who was mauled was behaving or how he was controlled prior to the attack. There's no point in arguing it because we don't know

What I'm saying is that retractable leashes are not responsible. They don't allow you to control your dog. This is why they are banned many places. A lot of newer dig owners might not realize the problem with them (they just think "oh great if the leash retracts then I can let my dog wander but still pull him back if I need to" not understanding that a retractable leash is not a good way to do that). So I am attempting to educate people in the problem with retractable leashes and explain why under MoCo law, you are much better off with a shorter, solid leash and training your dog for recall.

Why is there an implication that the dead dog deserved it??

No one is implying the dead dog deserved it. Even if the dog provoked the attack somehow, it would be the fault if the owner. Dogs have no moral or legal culpability for their behavior. They are dogs.

All of these posts about retractable leashes are criticism of the dead dog's owner, implying that she is at fault. If she isn't responsible for getting her dog killed, or failing to prevent it, then she should at least be fined for not having control of her dog, regardless of how long or short the leash was.

It's almost like the knee jerk DCUM blame-the-,OP has transferred to the dog owner. Anything to avoid blaming the pitbull.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we discuss the pit bull eating the dead dog in the yard??? I’ve had dogs my entire life and have never known one to eat a dead animal. What the hell is that? I’ve even had retrieving bird dogs. Was this dog starved? I just can’t imagine another dog killing and eating another.

Any IDs on the breed of the leashed dog that the pit killed?

This happened in my neighborhood, and I know the owners of the victim dog, a very sweet small/medium doodle mix that was always leashed on walks. The grapevine says the aggressor dog was a pit that apparently a neighborhood family was fostering (and doing a shockingly poor job of that, clearly).

People are out walking their dogs constantly around here, and everyone is shaken up and feeling horrible that our neighbor and her lovely dog had to endure this. We are all thinking about what we would or should have done if it happened to us. Does everyone else walk around their neighborhoods with bear or pepper spray just in case? Are those actually effective in dog attack scenarios?

Oh, goody. Gossip. That'll help.

This information is actually responsive to the thread topic, unlike the bizarre rants from the pit apologists.

I’m curious about what others do, if anything, to be prepared should they or their dog be attacked by a dangerous animal in their neighborhood?

1) leash your dog (no retractable leashes. 6ft max, 4 is better)
2) keep your dog under your control (by your side, quiet, focused, not wandering off-trail, not barking at passers-by)
3) stay alert and scan for hazards. You are on-duty. No headphones, no phone, stay present, eyes scanning for hazards (the more time you have to respond, the better your response is likely to be)
4) carry dog repel spray (something like this: https://www.amazon.com/REPELLENT-Repeller-Agressive-Attack-BICYCLE/dp/B01FYAIE80) and/or pepper spray and, most importantly, know how to use it
5) carry a walking stick or other 'break stick' in case you need to break up a fight so you're not using your hands/arms

But really? the first 3 will keep you safe. Most people invite trouble with an off-leash dog, or a dog that's too far outside their control, don't train their dogs not to bark ("don't start none, won't be none" applies in the dog world, too), and are half up their own backsides, talking on the phone, or texting, or...

Are you saying that if you ‘invite trouble’ by say, having your dog on a long lead while hiking that it’s okay that your ‘sweet pittie’ mauls that person and their dog to death?

Yes, fool, if you're inviting trouble by not having control of your dog, you become complicit in what happens to your dog. Same as if they get bit by a snake, get into poison ivy, or snap a leg in that gopher hole you would've avoided by having them on trail with you, like you should've.

The new dog owner's mentality of "close enough" isn't. There are rules for a reason, and if you care at all about your pet's well-being you should follow them. There are all sorts of actual liabilities you'll avoid by doing so; you don't need to make up horror stories about packs of mauling pit bulls.

Y'all treat this like it's playtime, when it's actually supposed to be taking responsibility for a living creature. No pride, no sense, just everything's a playzone and you can half-ass it.

The two women, the subject of this thread, were injured trying to save their poor doodle from the pit mix. Whether their doodle was heeling or 4 feet away from them, they couldn't save it and were injured themselves.

You're right that pitbulls are not "playtime". They are dangerous. And they are ubiquitous, on every neighborhood. Because of rescues.

You were there? You saw it? The two women weren't gossiping (like you) while their dog on a retractable leash started barking at an unleashed dog? You're sure of it?

No, you're not, because no, you weren't. And this is why nobody takes you haters seriously. You're so incredibly willing to talk out your arse and claim facts not in evidence, and you speak as if you know when you clearly do not.

Dog ownership is not playtime. Not any breed, not any size, not at any point. If you have different standards for different breeds, you're the problem. All dogs can bite, should be assumed to be unfriendly unless known, and all dog handlers should be focused on their dog(s), which should be under the owner's responsible control at all times.

This is how we keep ourselves, our dogs, and our neighbors safe.

And those young women shouldn’t wear such revealing clothes either. Basically inviting the rapists over to her.

No. One is an example of humans minding their business: women are allowed to dress however they please within the law. The other is an example of people not following the law (dogs are supposed to be under their owners control at all times).

On a leash is in control

On a retractable leash 10 feet away while you're on your phone is not in control.

Legally, morally, and ethically, it is.

Wrong on all counts (DP here).

Here is the Montgomery County rule regarding unwanted contact from dogs:

Unwanted Contact -
The pet owner must prevent unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal that occurs outside the owner’s property that may cause alarm in a reasonable person, such as biting, chasing, tracking, inhibiting movement, or jumping. ($500 fine)

Since retractable leashes and leashes over 4-6 feet do not adequately prevent "unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal" then you are violating the law.

I personally prefer DC's rule (which simply required dogs to be on leashes of 4' or less in any public area) because it's a clearer bright line that is harder to argue with. But the rules have the same goal and that's to require dog owners to control their dogs on leashes in public areas. A dog on a long lead or a retractable leash cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Morally/ethically is a judgment call but since it's not cruel to leash a dog (and if it is then I guess we should ban dogs as pets because we cannot have dogs as pets without leash laws), I don't see the issue here.

Leash your dog, no retractable leashes, no long leads.

Not sure what your point is. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if that dog is 20 ft away and bites you. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash, however, without unwanted contact, has their dog leashed.

Whether this dog had a 4-6' leash or a retractable leash, though, didn't save it.

I'm reminded of the dog that was killed in front of its owner, while on a leash, in Falls Church, by a crazy man with a knife. Being on a leash didn't save that dog either.

The goal of a leash is not to protect the dog. The goal of the leash is to protect everyone else from the dog. We have different laws to address crazy people with knives -- these laws, unfortunately, are not 100% effective.

But actually, technically, a dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if they are unable to prevent unwanted contact from the dog. Their dog doesn't have to be 10 feet away and they don't have to bit anyone. If the dog is not under the owner's control, they owner is in violation of the law. I can film you walking your dog on the long leash and report you to authorities.

I'll give you this: MoCo does not explicitly ban retractable leashes. So if you keep the retractable leash retracted to a short distance and never unlock so the dog can extend it (in other words use it the way a shorter leash would function and only that way) then you might not be in violation of the law. Though I think this is stupid since retractable leashes can fail and the way the handles work make them easier for a dog to rip out of an owner's hands, so I don't get why you wouldn't just get a regular leash. Also retractable leashes are explicitly banned a lot of places (because they don't work like leashes!) so you need to be ready to check the local laws if you take your dog outside the county. Good luck!

Honey, I live in Nova, not Moco. But I can look up their leash laws.

You are blaming these women for allowing their dog to be killed by an officer leash dog, and getting injured in the process. It's bizarre, the lengths you are going to in defending the pit bull.

No I'm not blaming these women for anything. And do not "Honey" me.

We don't know what happened with the dog attack. We don't know how the dog who was mauled was behaving or how he was controlled prior to the attack. There's no point in arguing it because we don't know

What I'm saying is that retractable leashes are not responsible. They don't allow you to control your dog. This is why they are banned many places. A lot of newer dig owners might not realize the problem with them (they just think "oh great if the leash retracts then I can let my dog wander but still pull him back if I need to" not understanding that a retractable leash is not a good way to do that). So I am attempting to educate people in the problem with retractable leashes and explain why under MoCo law, you are much better off with a shorter, solid leash and training your dog for recall.

Why is there an implication that the dead dog deserved it??

No one is implying the dead dog deserved it. Even if the dog provoked the attack somehow, it would be the fault if the owner. Dogs have no moral or legal culpability for their behavior. They are dogs.

All of these posts about retractable leashes are criticism of the dead dog's owner, implying that she is at fault. If she isn't responsible for getting her dog killed, or failing to prevent it, then she should at least be fined for not having control of her dog, regardless of how long or short the leash was.

It's almost like the knee jerk DCUM blame-the-,OP has transferred to the dog owner. Anything to avoid blaming the pitbull.

You'd rather blame "the pitbull" (has anyone been able to link to any actual, confirmed source saying was, in fact, a "pit bull"?) than the owner.

The. Dogs. Are. Not. At. Fault.

The dogs exist because of their owners. So if you want to blame, blame the people. And if there was one dog on a leash and one off, well, it's pretty clear who's responsible for the exchange. The extent of the damage any victim(s) might recover would be dependent on mitigating factors, so the leash issue may be relevant, but in the case of a leashed dog vs. an at-large dog, culpability for the interaction will be presumed to belong to the unleashed dog's OWNER (not the dog; as much as some of y'all would love to see it, the dog is NOT on trial, the owner would be).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we discuss the pit bull eating the dead dog in the yard??? I’ve had dogs my entire life and have never known one to eat a dead animal. What the hell is that? I’ve even had retrieving bird dogs. Was this dog starved? I just can’t imagine another dog killing and eating another.

Any IDs on the breed of the leashed dog that the pit killed?

This happened in my neighborhood, and I know the owners of the victim dog, a very sweet small/medium doodle mix that was always leashed on walks. The grapevine says the aggressor dog was a pit that apparently a neighborhood family was fostering (and doing a shockingly poor job of that, clearly).

People are out walking their dogs constantly around here, and everyone is shaken up and feeling horrible that our neighbor and her lovely dog had to endure this. We are all thinking about what we would or should have done if it happened to us. Does everyone else walk around their neighborhoods with bear or pepper spray just in case? Are those actually effective in dog attack scenarios?

Oh, goody. Gossip. That'll help.

This information is actually responsive to the thread topic, unlike the bizarre rants from the pit apologists.

I’m curious about what others do, if anything, to be prepared should they or their dog be attacked by a dangerous animal in their neighborhood?

1) leash your dog (no retractable leashes. 6ft max, 4 is better)
2) keep your dog under your control (by your side, quiet, focused, not wandering off-trail, not barking at passers-by)
3) stay alert and scan for hazards. You are on-duty. No headphones, no phone, stay present, eyes scanning for hazards (the more time you have to respond, the better your response is likely to be)
4) carry dog repel spray (something like this: https://www.amazon.com/REPELLENT-Repeller-Agressive-Attack-BICYCLE/dp/B01FYAIE80) and/or pepper spray and, most importantly, know how to use it
5) carry a walking stick or other 'break stick' in case you need to break up a fight so you're not using your hands/arms

But really? the first 3 will keep you safe. Most people invite trouble with an off-leash dog, or a dog that's too far outside their control, don't train their dogs not to bark ("don't start none, won't be none" applies in the dog world, too), and are half up their own backsides, talking on the phone, or texting, or...

Are you saying that if you ‘invite trouble’ by say, having your dog on a long lead while hiking that it’s okay that your ‘sweet pittie’ mauls that person and their dog to death?

Yes, fool, if you're inviting trouble by not having control of your dog, you become complicit in what happens to your dog. Same as if they get bit by a snake, get into poison ivy, or snap a leg in that gopher hole you would've avoided by having them on trail with you, like you should've.

The new dog owner's mentality of "close enough" isn't. There are rules for a reason, and if you care at all about your pet's well-being you should follow them. There are all sorts of actual liabilities you'll avoid by doing so; you don't need to make up horror stories about packs of mauling pit bulls.

Y'all treat this like it's playtime, when it's actually supposed to be taking responsibility for a living creature. No pride, no sense, just everything's a playzone and you can half-ass it.

The two women, the subject of this thread, were injured trying to save their poor doodle from the pit mix. Whether their doodle was heeling or 4 feet away from them, they couldn't save it and were injured themselves.

You're right that pitbulls are not "playtime". They are dangerous. And they are ubiquitous, on every neighborhood. Because of rescues.

You were there? You saw it? The two women weren't gossiping (like you) while their dog on a retractable leash started barking at an unleashed dog? You're sure of it?

No, you're not, because no, you weren't. And this is why nobody takes you haters seriously. You're so incredibly willing to talk out your arse and claim facts not in evidence, and you speak as if you know when you clearly do not.

Dog ownership is not playtime. Not any breed, not any size, not at any point. If you have different standards for different breeds, you're the problem. All dogs can bite, should be assumed to be unfriendly unless known, and all dog handlers should be focused on their dog(s), which should be under the owner's responsible control at all times.

This is how we keep ourselves, our dogs, and our neighbors safe.

And those young women shouldn’t wear such revealing clothes either. Basically inviting the rapists over to her.

No. One is an example of humans minding their business: women are allowed to dress however they please within the law. The other is an example of people not following the law (dogs are supposed to be under their owners control at all times).

On a leash is in control

On a retractable leash 10 feet away while you're on your phone is not in control.

Legally, morally, and ethically, it is.

Wrong on all counts (DP here).

Here is the Montgomery County rule regarding unwanted contact from dogs:

Unwanted Contact -
The pet owner must prevent unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal that occurs outside the owner’s property that may cause alarm in a reasonable person, such as biting, chasing, tracking, inhibiting movement, or jumping. ($500 fine)

Since retractable leashes and leashes over 4-6 feet do not adequately prevent "unwelcome or unsolicited threatening physical contact or close proximity to a person or a domestic animal" then you are violating the law.

I personally prefer DC's rule (which simply required dogs to be on leashes of 4' or less in any public area) because it's a clearer bright line that is harder to argue with. But the rules have the same goal and that's to require dog owners to control their dogs on leashes in public areas. A dog on a long lead or a retractable leash cannot, by definition, be controlled.

Morally/ethically is a judgment call but since it's not cruel to leash a dog (and if it is then I guess we should ban dogs as pets because we cannot have dogs as pets without leash laws), I don't see the issue here.

Leash your dog, no retractable leashes, no long leads.

Not sure what your point is. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if that dog is 20 ft away and bites you. A dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash, however, without unwanted contact, has their dog leashed.

Whether this dog had a 4-6' leash or a retractable leash, though, didn't save it.

I'm reminded of the dog that was killed in front of its owner, while on a leash, in Falls Church, by a crazy man with a knife. Being on a leash didn't save that dog either.

The goal of a leash is not to protect the dog. The goal of the leash is to protect everyone else from the dog. We have different laws to address crazy people with knives -- these laws, unfortunately, are not 100% effective.

But actually, technically, a dog owner walking their dog on a retractable leash can be fined if they are unable to prevent unwanted contact from the dog. Their dog doesn't have to be 10 feet away and they don't have to bit anyone. If the dog is not under the owner's control, they owner is in violation of the law. I can film you walking your dog on the long leash and report you to authorities.

I'll give you this: MoCo does not explicitly ban retractable leashes. So if you keep the retractable leash retracted to a short distance and never unlock so the dog can extend it (in other words use it the way a shorter leash would function and only that way) then you might not be in violation of the law. Though I think this is stupid since retractable leashes can fail and the way the handles work make them easier for a dog to rip out of an owner's hands, so I don't get why you wouldn't just get a regular leash. Also retractable leashes are explicitly banned a lot of places (because they don't work like leashes!) so you need to be ready to check the local laws if you take your dog outside the county. Good luck!

Honey, I live in Nova, not Moco. But I can look up their leash laws.

You are blaming these women for allowing their dog to be killed by an officer leash dog, and getting injured in the process. It's bizarre, the lengths you are going to in defending the pit bull.

No I'm not blaming these women for anything. And do not "Honey" me.

We don't know what happened with the dog attack. We don't know how the dog who was mauled was behaving or how he was controlled prior to the attack. There's no point in arguing it because we don't know

What I'm saying is that retractable leashes are not responsible. They don't allow you to control your dog. This is why they are banned many places. A lot of newer dig owners might not realize the problem with them (they just think "oh great if the leash retracts then I can let my dog wander but still pull him back if I need to" not understanding that a retractable leash is not a good way to do that). So I am attempting to educate people in the problem with retractable leashes and explain why under MoCo law, you are much better off with a shorter, solid leash and training your dog for recall.

Why is there an implication that the dead dog deserved it??

No one is implying the dead dog deserved it. Even if the dog provoked the attack somehow, it would be the fault if the owner. Dogs have no moral or legal culpability for their behavior. They are dogs.

All of these posts about retractable leashes are criticism of the dead dog's owner, implying that she is at fault. If she isn't responsible for getting her dog killed, or failing to prevent it, then she should at least be fined for not having control of her dog, regardless of how long or short the leash was.

It's almost like the knee jerk DCUM blame-the-,OP has transferred to the dog owner. Anything to avoid blaming the pitbull.

You'd rather blame "the pitbull" (has anyone been able to link to any actual, confirmed source saying was, in fact, a "pit bull"?) than the owner.

The. Dogs. Are. Not. At. Fault.

The dogs exist because of their owners. So if you want to blame, blame the people. And if there was one dog on a leash and one off, well, it's pretty clear who's responsible for the exchange. The extent of the damage any victim(s) might recover would be dependent on mitigating factors, so the leash issue may be relevant, but in the case of a leashed dog vs. an at-large dog, culpability for the interaction will be presumed to belong to the unleashed dog's OWNER (not the dog; as much as some of y'all would love to see it, the dog is NOT on trial, the owner would be).

Oh? If the dead dog's owner is not at fault for an off leash dog killing her dog and injuring her, then why are you still focused on the retractable leash?

If the attacking dog is a foster, as was posted upthread, then is the foster capable? Or the rescue? Or is it just one of those unfortunate things that happens when you walk through a neighbor, which, after all, as a PP put it, isn't playtime (which returns to blaming the dead dog's owner)?

[Anonymous]

The retractable leash lady is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The retractable leash lady is insane.

The retractable leash lady has a valid point. Those leashes are functionally useless, and should be banned. Using one is a flashing neon noob sign.

Nobody with any level of dog handling sense uses those things, for a reason. They do not provide sufficient control of your animal.

Might not be the point of the whole thread, but that doesn't mean you can't learn something important while you're here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rescues

You get what you pay for.

🩸 ❤️

Idiots. Their opinion isn't worth a cent.

You assume so much, probably because your brain is so small.

And how are you going to feel when the attacking dog(s) turn out to be purebred and the victim's dog was a beloved, scrappy shelter mutt?

Just stay quiet and be stupid by yourself, okay? Nobody needs your garbage take.

Yeah, attacking dog was a purebred pitbull (Giant American Bully). Figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The retractable leash lady is insane.

I don't get why we're even talking about it? I HATE retractable leashes with a passion, but it sounds like the victim dog was on...something? And was attacked by a dog NOT on a leash, which is the bigger problem than whatever leash the other owner was using. My dog was attacked by an offleash dog (pit type, incidentally enough) and my standard 4 foot flat leash didn't do a damn thing to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rescues

You get what you pay for.

🩸 ❤️

Idiots. Their opinion isn't worth a cent.

You assume so much, probably because your brain is so small.

And how are you going to feel when the attacking dog(s) turn out to be purebred and the victim's dog was a beloved, scrappy shelter mutt?

Just stay quiet and be stupid by yourself, okay? Nobody needs your garbage take.

Ask anybody in animal control 90% of the attacks are rescues

Boo-hoo 🩸 ❤️

Facts are facts

Really? Well considering 90% of dogs in rescue are pit bulls, it figures. So many county resources wasted on those pitbulls. Wish they were banned. Seriously - more funds for MCPS or for animal control?