Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thesun.ie/news/13237882/plastic-surgeon-restricted-dogs-ban-attack-psychological-damage/

What a classic example of a breed ban that doesn't solve the problem it's trying to solve. What kind of dog bite doesn't cause psychological damage? How many people don't like dogs because they were bitten as children? Were all those biting dogs "banned breeds"? No.

This is exactly the point. All dogs can bite. If you want fewer bites, you need more responsible owners.

Make an exam requirement to obtain a dog license. Increase the fines for off-leash dogs, etc. and use the funds to pay for more animal control officers. Remove the "two bite rule" and make it "one bite and you're out", encouraging owners to both better train and better contain their animals. Ban retractable leashes and other useless/dangerous equipment.

Those things would solve the problem. Breed bans only attempt to solve the PR problem some breeds have, when all breeds bite and any breed off-leash in public is a liability.

So you would ban dog parks?

No. Contain the stupidity. Some people are going to do this anyway, regardless of the fact that it's a terrible idea, so it's best to give them a specific location to do it.

I would never take my dog to one, but I believe they should exist. Every city that allows dogs should have a "central stupidity area", if for no other reason than to prevent the OP's brand of public space hijacking.

Why do you think dog parks are stupid??

Dog trainer: they’re pretty terrible. The risk of injury/attack/illness is so much higher than the benefits of “socialization”. They are the equivalent of a crowded bar with new people approaching you asking for your number every day. And those people behave weird, and can’t take a hint when you’re tired and want to be left alone. And also all glasses are shared and you lick each other. Hello, viruses.

I have dozens of client dogs whose reactivity and resource guarding and aggression increased due to dog park use. I have yet to have one whose behavior improved because of one.

The worst was a sweet little cavalier who was happy go lucky perfect little dog until another dog grabbed him roughly. He was physically fine, but we worked YEARS to fix the aggression, and never fully did. Just not a risk I want to take.

Dogs need mental and physical exercise, but they don’t need to be in a pack of strange dogs. If you don’t have the resources to meet a dog’s needs without the dog park, maybe reconsider the breed/age/species of pet you should get.

I find this odd. My dog and my neighbors dogs love the socialization of our local dog park. It’s their favorite time of day.

We have an English Yellow Lab and an English Chocolate Lab. Both are 90+ pounds and extremely friendly, but we operate under the model that all other dogs (the exceptions being dogs that we've previously meet and are aware of the temperaments) do not know that our dogs are friendly, and since they're big we know that they can intimidate smaller dogs or people who aren't dog lovers.

Because of this, our dogs are ALWAYS leashed for their safety when we're out in public. They are well trained and have great recall but there are so many poorly trained, aggressive dogs out there, we don't want to take any chances, and we realize that we have responsibilities as dog owners.

The only time they go off leash is when they swim, which we do often since they both love it, but we're always aware of our surroundings and other people or dogs nearby.

We had an interaction with a large GSD a few years ago in the water that made us realize that there's no way to control the actions of other people and other dogs, so the safest thing we can do is control our dogs.

OP, just because you own a Golden Retriever who "wouldn't hurt a fly" doesn't mean that there's no risk associated with letting it go off leash in an informal dog run. Our incident with a moody GSD a few years ago occurred in what sounds like a similar set up. The unleashed GSD approached our dogs when they were swimming in a park pond and started growling and snapping at them. The owner came up to the waters edge and she acted as if this was nothing for us to be concerned about and settled right down on the shore presumably so her GSD could swim with our dogs for awhile. Safe to say we quickly called our labs out of the water and went on our way. Some of these owners are completely clueless. Please don't be one of them, OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why did this thread turn into a discussion on pitbulls?

OP runs her Golden off-leash. OP wonders whether they should stop due to recent local dog attacks.

Discuss.

OP is the clown who brought "pit bulls" into it, because OP is a troll.

Well, admittedly I mentioned pit bulls too. They are a menace, let’s be honest

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thesun.ie/news/13237882/plastic-surgeon-restricted-dogs-ban-attack-psychological-damage/

What a classic example of a breed ban that doesn't solve the problem it's trying to solve. What kind of dog bite doesn't cause psychological damage? How many people don't like dogs because they were bitten as children? Were all those biting dogs "banned breeds"? No.

This is exactly the point. All dogs can bite. If you want fewer bites, you need more responsible owners.

Make an exam requirement to obtain a dog license. Increase the fines for off-leash dogs, etc. and use the funds to pay for more animal control officers. Remove the "two bite rule" and make it "one bite and you're out", encouraging owners to both better train and better contain their animals. Ban retractable leashes and other useless/dangerous equipment.

Those things would solve the problem. Breed bans only attempt to solve the PR problem some breeds have, when all breeds bite and any breed off-leash in public is a liability.

So you would ban dog parks?

No. Contain the stupidity. Some people are going to do this anyway, regardless of the fact that it's a terrible idea, so it's best to give them a specific location to do it.

I would never take my dog to one, but I believe they should exist. Every city that allows dogs should have a "central stupidity area", if for no other reason than to prevent the OP's brand of public space hijacking.

Why do you think dog parks are stupid??

Dog trainer: they’re pretty terrible. The risk of injury/attack/illness is so much higher than the benefits of “socialization”. They are the equivalent of a crowded bar with new people approaching you asking for your number every day. And those people behave weird, and can’t take a hint when you’re tired and want to be left alone. And also all glasses are shared and you lick each other. Hello, viruses.

I have dozens of client dogs whose reactivity and resource guarding and aggression increased due to dog park use. I have yet to have one whose behavior improved because of one.

The worst was a sweet little cavalier who was happy go lucky perfect little dog until another dog grabbed him roughly. He was physically fine, but we worked YEARS to fix the aggression, and never fully did. Just not a risk I want to take.

Dogs need mental and physical exercise, but they don’t need to be in a pack of strange dogs. If you don’t have the resources to meet a dog’s needs without the dog park, maybe reconsider the breed/age/species of pet you should get.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never do! But I regularly see people doing this, which makes it so difficult when I’m walking my dog. Their dog inevitably comes after mine.

People get so testy if you ask “is that your dog?”

Kick it. If it's close enough to your foot, kick it. That's WAY too close.

Why would you kick another dog? I walk my dog on a leash but frankly I wouldn’t keep a dog who I couldn’t trust to not be aggressive and bite if another dog came up to him. I live in a dense community and if your dog is that sensitive and prone to attack, you probably shouldn’t have it at all.

You believe that I should only have a flawless dog, just in case some ahole owner willfully and deliberately flaunts the law and allows their dog off leash, and you're mad at the idea that I might kick an unleashed dog who got too close?

I didn't even say I was with my dog. If your unleashed dog comes running up to just me, I will kick it. If you don't want your dog getting kicked, leash it and keep it away.

Y'all are entirely too fscking trusting.

Do you kick babies and children too?

Anonymous wrote:

Why did this thread turn into a discussion on pitbulls?

OP runs her Golden off-leash. OP wonders whether they should stop due to recent local dog attacks.

Discuss.

OP is the clown who brought "pit bulls" into it, because OP is a troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never do! But I regularly see people doing this, which makes it so difficult when I’m walking my dog. Their dog inevitably comes after mine.

People get so testy if you ask “is that your dog?”

Kick it. If it's close enough to your foot, kick it. That's WAY too close.

Why would you kick another dog? I walk my dog on a leash but frankly I wouldn’t keep a dog who I couldn’t trust to not be aggressive and bite if another dog came up to him. I live in a dense community and if your dog is that sensitive and prone to attack, you probably shouldn’t have it at all.

You believe that I should only have a flawless dog, just in case some ahole owner willfully and deliberately flaunts the law and allows their dog off leash, and you're mad at the idea that I might kick an unleashed dog who got too close?

I didn't even say I was with my dog. If your unleashed dog comes running up to just me, I will kick it. If you don't want your dog getting kicked, leash it and keep it away.

Y'all are entirely too fscking trusting.

Isn’t this a thread about dog owners?

I don’t think people need to have flawless dogs. All dogs make mistakes. But I do think people shouldn’t have dogs that will likely do serious damage when they make a mistake. See the distinction?

So people should only own chihuahuas, and only if they don't have small children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, we have similar by our place, but pitbulls are banned where we live, so I don’t worry as much. Of course there can always be dogs who might be aggressive- so far no thankfully- but at least I don’t have to worry about a dog being killed by a Pitbull. A friends cat was killed by her pit bull and sorry, that’s all I need to know about that breed. They are not safe.

There are no "safe" dogs. All dogs can bite.

Of course, but some dogs are disproportionately associated with lethal attacks. The dogs in our area tend to be smaller dogs or friendly breeds. I don’t worry about them killing a small child or another dog

Again with the nonsense. You say "disproportionately", but you don't have a stat to back this claim. You don't have the total number of dogs by breed vs. the total number of bites by breed. Unless, of course, you do. I've been looking for this stat for a very long time now, and haven't found it, so if you've got it, by all means, links would be lovely.

Also? You say "the dogs in our area tend to be smaller or friendly breeds" but the other threads are all ranting "every dog is a pit mix". Which is it?

And you should worry about a chihuahua biting your kid. And a small dog can kill. There's no such thing as a "friendly breed" that never bites.

Ignorance is the biggest problem

There are stats that say 30 percent of legal dog attacks are from pits.

And if you’re claiming that a chihuahua bite is the same as a pit bite you are being purposely obtuse.

There are a number of people on this thread. The dogs where I live tend to be smaller and/or friendly breeds.

Yes, there are. There are medical stats, about bites, that say that 30% of the bites in their study came from "pit type dogs"

1) "pit bull" isn't a breed. It's an umbrella term used to label 5 distinct breeds and, "pit type breeds" includes mixes. So right off the bat, not a solid fact.
2) "Of 150ish cases... 30% were pit-type" is not the same as "30 percent of legal dog attacks are from pits"
3) In order for these stats, bites by breed, to have any real meaning, you have to look at the total number of dogs. If there are 100 dog bites, from 100 distinct dogs, and 30 of the dogs are "pit bulls" and 30% of the total bites are from "pit bulls", that means ever single pit bit, which is a massive statistic. But that's not what the reported stats are saying. 30% of total bites needs to be measured against not only how many other breeds of dogs bit, but how many total dogs of each breed are represented. Nobody has this chart. Believe me, I've looked.

So you get stats taken out of context thrown around like they're meaningful, clickbait news articles that will add "pit bull" even when the police report specifically avoids naming the breed(s) of dogs involved, and hysterical haters, demanding breed-specific legislation that won't solve the problems (but could help them feel safer from their "pit bull" paranoia).

All of it overlooks the actual truth: There are no friendly breeds. All dogs can bite, and will if cornered, scared, injured, etc. Even the medical studies you're misquoting say that the solution is better training for humans, not breed bans.

A bunch of them are cited and debunked over in the other thread. Go read: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/255/1246000.page#29026190

We go to a dog run and the socialization is so important for our dog. The angry people on here ranting about long leashes etc likely have aggressive breed dogs, and refuse to acknowledge it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never do! But I regularly see people doing this, which makes it so difficult when I’m walking my dog. Their dog inevitably comes after mine.

People get so testy if you ask “is that your dog?”

Kick it. If it's close enough to your foot, kick it. That's WAY too close.

Why would you kick another dog? I walk my dog on a leash but frankly I wouldn’t keep a dog who I couldn’t trust to not be aggressive and bite if another dog came up to him. I live in a dense community and if your dog is that sensitive and prone to attack, you probably shouldn’t have it at all.

You believe that I should only have a flawless dog, just in case some ahole owner willfully and deliberately flaunts the law and allows their dog off leash, and you're mad at the idea that I might kick an unleashed dog who got too close?

I didn't even say I was with my dog. If your unleashed dog comes running up to just me, I will kick it. If you don't want your dog getting kicked, leash it and keep it away.

Y'all are entirely too fscking trusting.

Isn’t this a thread about dog owners?

I don’t think people need to have flawless dogs. All dogs make mistakes. But I do think people shouldn’t have dogs that will likely do serious damage when they make a mistake. See the distinction?

Yes, on private property/rented sniff spots/legal off leash trails. I drive pretty far to access these things. In suburbia, no—on leash, because no one else knows my dogs and everyone deserves to feel safe in walks (they are 15 lbs, but bark their heads off at strangers and no one deserves that)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thesun.ie/news/13237882/plastic-surgeon-restricted-dogs-ban-attack-psychological-damage/

What a classic example of a breed ban that doesn't solve the problem it's trying to solve. What kind of dog bite doesn't cause psychological damage? How many people don't like dogs because they were bitten as children? Were all those biting dogs "banned breeds"? No.

This is exactly the point. All dogs can bite. If you want fewer bites, you need more responsible owners.

Make an exam requirement to obtain a dog license. Increase the fines for off-leash dogs, etc. and use the funds to pay for more animal control officers. Remove the "two bite rule" and make it "one bite and you're out", encouraging owners to both better train and better contain their animals. Ban retractable leashes and other useless/dangerous equipment.

Those things would solve the problem. Breed bans only attempt to solve the PR problem some breeds have, when all breeds bite and any breed off-leash in public is a liability.

So you would ban dog parks?

No. Contain the stupidity. Some people are going to do this anyway, regardless of the fact that it's a terrible idea, so it's best to give them a specific location to do it.

I would never take my dog to one, but I believe they should exist. Every city that allows dogs should have a "central stupidity area", if for no other reason than to prevent the OP's brand of public space hijacking.

Why do you think dog parks are stupid??

Why did this thread turn into a discussion on pitbulls?

OP runs her Golden off-leash. OP wonders whether they should stop due to recent local dog attacks.

Discuss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never do! But I regularly see people doing this, which makes it so difficult when I’m walking my dog. Their dog inevitably comes after mine.

People get so testy if you ask “is that your dog?”

Kick it. If it's close enough to your foot, kick it. That's WAY too close.

Why would you kick another dog? I walk my dog on a leash but frankly I wouldn’t keep a dog who I couldn’t trust to not be aggressive and bite if another dog came up to him. I live in a dense community and if your dog is that sensitive and prone to attack, you probably shouldn’t have it at all.

You believe that I should only have a flawless dog, just in case some ahole owner willfully and deliberately flaunts the law and allows their dog off leash, and you're mad at the idea that I might kick an unleashed dog who got too close?

I didn't even say I was with my dog. If your unleashed dog comes running up to just me, I will kick it. If you don't want your dog getting kicked, leash it and keep it away.

Y'all are entirely too fscking trusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, we have similar by our place, but pitbulls are banned where we live, so I don’t worry as much. Of course there can always be dogs who might be aggressive- so far no thankfully- but at least I don’t have to worry about a dog being killed by a Pitbull. A friends cat was killed by her pit bull and sorry, that’s all I need to know about that breed. They are not safe.

There are no "safe" dogs. All dogs can bite.

Of course, but some dogs are disproportionately associated with lethal attacks. The dogs in our area tend to be smaller dogs or friendly breeds. I don’t worry about them killing a small child or another dog

Again with the nonsense. You say "disproportionately", but you don't have a stat to back this claim. You don't have the total number of dogs by breed vs. the total number of bites by breed. Unless, of course, you do. I've been looking for this stat for a very long time now, and haven't found it, so if you've got it, by all means, links would be lovely.

Also? You say "the dogs in our area tend to be smaller or friendly breeds" but the other threads are all ranting "every dog is a pit mix". Which is it?

And you should worry about a chihuahua biting your kid. And a small dog can kill. There's no such thing as a "friendly breed" that never bites.

Ignorance is the biggest problem

There are stats that say 30 percent of legal dog attacks are from pits.

And if you’re claiming that a chihuahua bite is the same as a pit bite you are being purposely obtuse.

There are a number of people on this thread. The dogs where I live tend to be smaller and/or friendly breeds.