malevolent mutts
Comments
-
Crag Rat wrote:
If you regularly encounter problems, a very simple but the most effective deterant (even better than a dog dazer imho) is a small mineral water/pop bottle filled with pebbles. When a dog approaches shake the bottle at the dog and shout NO in a firm commanding voice. I carry one whilst at work and recently faced down a Tibetan Mastif this way. I also use it to fend off other dogs that attack my two collies.
.
that is an interesting tip ... I'd find it a bit awkward to carry though. sounds like you have to deal with a lot of dog aggression around your parts! ?0 -
Raph
great argument.
My wife got bitten by a German Shepherd and now she is terrified when she hears any barking when out on the bike. We cycled up mount Ochi in Greece 2 years ago and there was a dog (would easily passed for a wolf) guarding sheep at the top. Took all her courage to cycle past it (else it was a long way round).
Really the GS encounter has seriously affected her. I know that most dog owners are sensible but there is a small growing tendency to use the larger canines as fashion accessories.aztecboy0 -
RaphRaph wrote:There's probably a discussion somewhere about people being violent and biting each other - go and let some out some steam there. Here the topic is DOGS.
Unless you own this website and forum, I'll express my view if I choose. I was trying to add a touch of reasoned balance and perspective. About dogs.
I sense that reason and perspective are just a distant memory for some people...Raph wrote:a little scotty dog on the road... predictably growled and went for me as I squeezed past... ...so without stopping I slapped it on the head as hard as I could as I went by and snarled back at itRaph wrote:Next time I went up the same road I took a hefty branch with a sharp bit sticking out of the side, fully intending to terminate any canine that gave me the slightest aggroRaph wrote:I thought of putting a speaker spike, as in the sort that normally screw into speaker stands to dig into a wooden floor, into the presta valve bit of my pumpRaph wrote:I could similarly show my warm-hearted friendship to their dog by taking a chunk out of its shinsRaph wrote:it seems that one should treat dogs by dog standards - i.e. if a dog threatens you, do what any bigger dog would have done and rip its s0dding head off.Raph wrote:I don't fancy chucking away a good pump to amuse passing dogs! If i can skewer them though it might be worth itRaph wrote:"cycle polo where the dog is the little ball "
Yes - that's along the lines I was thinking. A cricket ball on the end of your pump... maybe a concrete cricket ball... with a lead core.Raph wrote:HAHAHAHAHAHA
Hard to imagine how his phobia developed.Raph wrote:I had my dog-phobic little boy with me
I didn't even make it halfway through your posts and I'm bored.
Try putting valium in your water bottle.
I believe the expression is, "I'm outta here."
:roll:0 -
I can see this one from both sides. I go running and biking on the hills here at times of day when dog walkers are out in force, and 90%+ of the owners are very good and in control of their dogs and get them out of your way - this is with dogs who aren't themselves really a problem. It only takes one though - I got bitten whilst on a running interval session on the local common. Owners comment was that I should have stopped running, oh and the classic that the dog had never done that before. My reply was that I was quite entitled to run - it wasn't my problem - and their dog should be on a lead if they couldn't control it (that's actually a bylaw there, though most ignore it without problems). They still didn't seem to get the point, but when i suggested I could call the police it finally seemed to sink in. Didn't actually feel like attacking the dog, as it was obviously only a puppy and overexcited, but that's no excuse for the owner not controlling it properly (would quite happily have kicked them). On my next loop round when I'd restarted my session, I was pleased to see it was back on a lead.0
-
"Unless you own this website and forum, I'll express my view if I choose"
HAHAHA - You're really popping your top aren't you... I didn't say you shouldn't express your view - I suggested you start another topic since you couldn't seem to stay on this one, so stop squealing like a flouncing diva! If you've never had a problem with a dog, your opinions on the matter of vicious dogs are fairly irrelevant - though please express them anyway, it gives me a good laugh. Another parallel - I've never been burgled, but it's rather irrelevant for me to take the p1ss out of people who have been who might be concerned about it. In this case though the paranoia is totally yours. Sounds like your dog behaves itself, and if a mad cyclist were to come along and "approach from behind at +20mph without a warning and scare the cr4p out of dog " I'd be on your side, a possibility which doesn't seem to have entered your mind.
The fact that other people have joined this discussion and mentioned being bitten by dogs shows it's not something I made up - it happens. Rarely, but it happens, and sometimes it's bad enough that one encounter can ruin someone's life - I'm only repeating myself cos you didn't hear it the first three times.
"I didn't even make it halfway through your posts and I'm bored." That's why your responses are irrelevant, and in any case not as bored as I am trying to explain to your infinite deafness that I have no problem with dogs in general. Anyway you made it far enough through my posts to quote a biased selection from them. "I sense that reason and perspective are just a distant memory for some people... " - yes, yourself. It's just as well you're outta here cos you weren't contributing anything useful.
Thanks for the bottle of pebbles idea! Exactly the sort of idea I was after.
"I can see this one from both sides." - so can I. As I said (but seems to have totally bypassed richardast) I do like dogs, except the tiny minority that haven't learned to share the world with humans.
PS richardast - I have two little boys, the younger one is totally dog-un-phobic, loves dogs, sometimes runs up to huge ones and cuddles them, sometimes on the very same occasion where the other one is cowering behind me in terror... so your snide implication falls flat. Also worth noting that when the phobic one was little he was fine, and I think something must have happened that we didn't get to see - cos overnight he was suddenly terrified of dogs.0 -
PPPS - a funny thing once, I walked up the path to a mate's front door, and the neighbour's dog took a dislike to me and went totally spare, yapping and jumping up and snapping at my hands... The neighbour came out and said "oh yeah, the previous owner mistreated him and had stubble like yours, so he takes against people with stubble". No apology, no attempt to calm dog down, no acknowledgement that a couple days chin growth isn't a known crime (is it? yes ok very funny!), just a seemingly perfect explanation that puts me in the wrong when all I did was walk up to some else's front door. As a concession to not p1ssing off my mate's neighbour I merely kept the dog at bay without hurting it, using the things I was carrying, but why the hell should I have to? A person would be locked up for threatening a passer-by, but for some dogs it's "natural" apparently.0
-
I have 2 Jack Russells and walk them along a shared pedestrain/cyclist footpath with woodland on both sides. There is no local bye law in force that dogs must be kept on a lead. There is a presumption in law that in the event of a collision between a cyclist and a dog (or cat) that it is the fault of the said animal unless it can be proved that the cyclist was riding in dangerous manner.
On a shared footpath where there are children going to school, pedestrians walking to work/shops and other dog owners walking their dogs any sensible cyclist will adjust their speed so as to avoid any chance of a collision. It wolud be quite easy to prove that any collision would be the fault of the cyclist riding in a dangerous manner, and this could work out to quite expensive in a compensation claim.
There are kamikaze cyclists who expect eveyone to keep on their side of the path, don't slow down, swear if the dogs happen to walk across them and they have to slow down. Always in a hurry, a race to get there, no one must dare delay them. Basically you have to ask why they choose to go on a shared footpath in the first place.
Keep on the road if you want to ride fast.
There are people like this in all walks of life. They are the ones with the problem. They see that other people (and animals) exist just to cause them (poor little souls) problems. Anyone can be brave about what they are going to do if and when etc. etc. but in reality these idiots are basically cowards. There are people who are prepared to meet force with equal force to defend their property and their rights, be they dog owners or drivers or whoever. Bear that in mind before you start to hit or or hurt an animal with a dog dazer or whatever.0 -
Wow - your paranoia is quite stunning. Why are you dog people getting so het up? Nobody has suggested hurting a peaceful dog. I've been at pains to point out that it's in the context that 99 out of 100 dogs are fine, there are worse things in life than pesky dogs (pesky cyclists could even be in that list), I like dogs, I know a few I take for walks, one of my kids loves dogs, I'm trying to get the other one to see the light... But the two of you are exploding like a couple of over-ripe zits over stuff that hasn't been said and I don't think anybody would suggest. I get the feeling that the two of you are just angry people that like being angry. Hopefully your dogs are in a better mood.
"There is a presumption in law that in the event of a collision between a cyclist and a dog (or cat) that it is the fault of the said animal unless it can be proved that the cyclist was riding in dangerous manner" - That's stupid and obviously very unfair - why should the presumption of guilt be on anybody till anything's proven? If there's any petition or pressure group on that subject I'd like to know, because that needs changing. A dog in the village here got put down for attacking someone, it turned out later that the somone in question was a psycho that had tortured the dog...
A few points -
You're still taking us off on another topic, which is obviously ok, but nothing to do with what I was asking about. You're talking about cyclists who are inconsiderate human beings. Fine. I could start another topic about trees that are inconsiderate (when inconsiderate cyclists crash into them?). Note that the answer that I liked best was one that doesn't involve any return aggression towards a dog.
A dog dazer doesn't hurt dogs, they just don't like it. It makes a high pitch sound - you can point it in your own ear at point blank range, it's just unpleasant, and most of the sound is above human frequencies. The police use them in dog training, or so it says on the blurb. If that's hurting your poor fragile animal then it really is a fairy!
"Keep on the road if you want to ride fast. " Absolutely! I find cycle paths pointless, the few times I've used them there's one side for pedestrians and their dogs, the other side for bikes, but pedestrians and their dogs/kids are all over BOTH sides, so you have to ride at little more than walking pace to avoid being branded a kamikaze by some not very bright spark who can't understand that a bicycle logo means that's the side for bicycles.
On the other hand - I don't see why dogs or kids should have to recognize a bicycle logo, which is why I think shared use cycle lanes are pointless. However, they're there so cyclists use them, you can't blame them for that. You wouldn't stroll out onto a road and slow the traffic down and then launch into "Always in a hurry, a race to get there, no one must dare delay them." about cars. Or maybe you would!
"There are people who are prepared to meet force with equal force to defend their property and their rights" - precisely! - anyone who doesn't like getting bitten by dogs should be prepared to meet toothy canine aggression with equal aggression if that's the only way to avoid getting mauled. Your dog-biased point has backfired.0 -
Raph wrote:Wow - your paranoia is quite stunning. Why are you dog people getting so het up? Nobody has suggested hurting a peaceful dog. I've been at pains to point out that it's in the context that 99 out of 100 dogs are fine, there are worse things in life than pesky dogs (pesky cyclists could even be in that list), I like dogs, I know a few I take for walks, one of my kids loves dogs, I'm trying to get the other one to see the light... But the two of you are exploding like a couple of over-ripe zits over stuff that hasn't been said and I don't think anybody would suggest. I get the feeling that the two of you are just angry people that like being angry. Hopefully your dogs are in a better mood.
"There is a presumption in law that in the event of a collision between a cyclist and a dog (or cat) that it is the fault of the said animal unless it can be proved that the cyclist was riding in dangerous manner" - That's stupid and obviously very unfair - why should the presumption of guilt be on anybody till anything's proven? If there's any petition or pressure group on that subject I'd like to know, because that needs changing. A dog in the village here got put down for attacking someone, it turned out later that the somone in question was a psycho that had tortured the dog...
A few points -
You're still taking us off on another topic, which is obviously ok, but nothing to do with what I was asking about. You're talking about cyclists who are inconsiderate human beings. Fine. I could start another topic about trees that are inconsiderate (when inconsiderate cyclists crash into them?). Note that the answer that I liked best was one that doesn't involve any return aggression towards a dog.
A dog dazer doesn't hurt dogs, they just don't like it. It makes a high pitch sound - you can point it in your own ear at point blank range, it's just unpleasant, and most of the sound is above human frequencies. The police use them in dog training, or so it says on the blurb. If that's hurting your poor fragile animal then it really is a fairy!
"Keep on the road if you want to ride fast. " Absolutely! I find cycle paths pointless, the few times I've used them there's one side for pedestrians and their dogs, the other side for bikes, but pedestrians and their dogs/kids are all over BOTH sides, so you have to ride at little more than walking pace to avoid being branded a kamikaze by some not very bright spark who can't understand that a bicycle logo means that's the side for bicycles.
On the other hand - I don't see why dogs or kids should have to recognize a bicycle logo, which is why I think shared use cycle lanes are pointless. However, they're there so cyclists use them, you can't blame them for that. You wouldn't stroll out onto a road and slow the traffic down and then launch into "Always in a hurry, a race to get there, no one must dare delay them." about cars. Or maybe you would!
"There are people who are prepared to meet force with equal force to defend their property and their rights" - precisely! - anyone who doesn't like getting bitten by dogs should be prepared to meet toothy canine aggression with equal aggression if that's the only way to avoid getting mauled. Your dog-biased point has backfired.
0 -
Re: pebbles in a bottle, this is a common dog training aid. Often owners will use pebbles in a tin to cause a distraction that will break the behaviour pattern of the dog through making a shocking noise. You can actually buy some little metal disks that do a similar thing. Much lighter and more poketable if you have a recurring problem. Sure if you google dog training and disks you might get a result.0
-
Cheers heavymental.
Good argument Mike, your best yet. 0 -
Wildmoustache, I don't experience anymore problems than anyone else I guess. It's just that due to my job and the fact I walk my two dogs I come into contact with dogs. The bottle I carry is small enough to fit into my mailbag or my pocket whilst walking my dogs. It amazes me how angry other owners have got when I use the bottle when my dogs have been attacked. It causes no injury what so ever yet they don't like somebody else rebuking their precious thing. One elderly gentleman tried to fight me, he was trying to get his dog to come back to him by throwing it's leads at it, I wouldn't come back to anyone who was going to beat me so why should the dog? When I pointed this out to him he went for me instead :shock:
I think that when someone buys a dog they should have to attend training classes after which they would get a license for the dog. Anyone who hasn't got a license would have their dog impounded until they had completed the course. Mind you I think this should apply to people who want children though :twisted:0 -
Which would imply that your dogs aren't under as much control as if they were on a lead, which is the requirement for you to allow them off the lead on a shared use path. Just because there's no bylaw doesn't mean it's allowed to have your dogs running around not under direct control.Mike Willcox wrote:I have 2 Jack Russells and walk them along a shared pedestrain/cyclist footpath with woodland on both sides. There is no local bye law in force that dogs must be kept on a lead.
...
There are kamikaze cyclists who expect eveyone to keep on their side of the path, don't slow down, swear if the dogs happen to walk across them and they have to slow down.0 -
Mike Willcox wrote:I have 2 Jack Russells and walk them along a shared pedestrain/cyclist footpath with woodland on both sides. There is no local bye law in force that dogs must be kept on a lead. There is a presumption in law that in the event of a collision between a cyclist and a dog (or cat) that it is the fault of the said animal unless it can be proved that the cyclist was riding in dangerous manner.
On a shared footpath where there are children going to school, pedestrians walking to work/shops and other dog owners walking their dogs any sensible cyclist will adjust their speed so as to avoid any chance of a collision. It wolud be quite easy to prove that any collision would be the fault of the cyclist riding in a dangerous manner, and this could work out to quite expensive in a compensation claim.
There are kamikaze cyclists who expect eveyone to keep on their side of the path, don't slow down, swear if the dogs happen to walk across them and they have to slow down. Always in a hurry, a race to get there, no one must dare delay them. Basically you have to ask why they choose to go on a shared footpath in the first place.
Keep on the road if you want to ride fast.
There are people like this in all walks of life. They are the ones with the problem. They see that other people (and animals) exist just to cause them (poor little souls) problems. Anyone can be brave about what they are going to do if and when etc. etc. but in reality these idiots are basically cowards. There are people who are prepared to meet force with equal force to defend their property and their rights, be they dog owners or drivers or whoever. Bear that in mind before you start to hit or or hurt an animal with a dog dazer or whatever.
you've neatly summarised the ignorance and inconsideration of the blindly pro-dog lobby there mike0 -
wildmoustache wrote:you've neatly summarised the ignorance and inconsideration of the blindly pro-dog lobby there mike 0
-
aracer wrote:Which would imply that your dogs aren't under as much control as if they were on a lead, which is the requirement for you to allow them off the lead on a shared use path. Just because there's no bylaw doesn't mean it's allowed to have your dogs running around not under direct control.
You are spouting off about something you have no knowledge. What requirement? What law? Before you start telling me about what I can and cannot do with my dogs go and get your facts right.
edited to remove harsh jibe :oops:0 -
Doesn't seem to stop you.Mike Willcox wrote:You are spouting off about something you have no knowledge.
Don't think I can be bothered to honour your comment with any more useful reply, apart from pointing out that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence.0 -
aracer wrote:
Doesn't seem to stop you.Mike Willcox wrote:You are spouting off about something you have no knowledge.
Don't think I can be bothered to honour your comment with any more useful reply, apart from pointing out that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence.
In the absence of a local bye-law there is nothing illegal about walking a dog off a lead along a shared pedestrian/cycling footpath. How can I be ignorant of a law that doesn't exist? As you cannot prove a negative, for the second time please enlighten me. What law am I breaking?0 -
Dog owners that refuse to properly control their animals are ridiculously irresponsible people. It's amazing how many of them seem to think it is fine. These people shouldn't be allowed to keep animals, they are a danger to others.
As far as the dogs themselves, if it snaps at people, kill it.
Hypocrisy is only a bad thing in other people.0 -
Garybee wrote:Dog owners that refuse to properly control their animals are ridiculously irresponsible people. It's amazing how many of them seem to think it is fine. These people shouldn't be allowed to keep animals, they are a danger to others.
As far as the dogs themselves, if it snaps at people, kill it.
Has any dog snapped at you? And if it has did you kill it or do you just talk like a pathetic inadequate?0 -
Guys, can we cool down a bit? I've not proposed killing anything, just asked what to do when attacked or threatened. I was hoping for suggestions from dog owners, but the two on here have come up with nothing other than to avoid the question and imply that dogs never do anything less than angelic. I started this thread on the subject of "malevolent mutts" - there are very very few of these, but they still turn up occasionally so I was asking what one can do about it. Whether dogs generally should have to be on leads would ideally depend on how they behaved - as it is, the majority is in a sense punished for the behaviour of a few, which is grindingly unfair.
Like I said I've looked after dogs quite a lot though I've never owned one - even those have occasionally got into fights with other dogs and I've not known what to do about it. Thankfully they've never threatened (or been threatened by) people and I've never let them out of my sight because I know that if there is a scrap I don't want to be one of those dog owners that looks the other way when their dog ever starts any trouble and then denies flatly that it just did, not realizing how funny they sound while it's actually growling and snapping at someone. When dogs I've taken for walks have got into scraps with other dogs I've been very firm with them and once or twice had to pull the other dog off because the owner hadn't a clue what to do. So it's clear there are lots of dog owners that don't know how to look after their dogs, and I myself wouldn't take a dog out that I didn't have some authority over.
richardast failed to include in his quotes of mine the fact that I slapped a dog on the head while it was attacking me - I wasn't trying to "kill it", I just wanted to stop the scummy little rat from attacking me, while its owner who was right there on the scene wasn't even getting out of the car - and by the way it was effective, it backed off and just continued yapping. If you think I should just let it get on with it then fair enough say so.
Considering what dogs do to each other when they scrap, the stuff I was proposing was pretty mild, and only in the context of being threatened or attacked - yet two dog owners that think of themselves as reasonable got all huffy. If your dog behaves, there isn't a problem. I don't think dogs should ever have to be on leads, as long as they behave.
"There are people who are prepared to meet force with equal force to defend their property and their rights, be they dog owners or drivers or whoever. Bear that in mind before you start to hit or or hurt an animal with a dog dazer or whatever."
- oooooooh very very macho what a hunk. You must be in the gun lobby too I bet. The point is you make no distinction between hitting or hurting an animal for the fun of it, and hitting or hurting an animal that's attacking you.0 -
Raph wrote:"There are people who are prepared to meet force with equal force to defend their property and their rights, be they dog owners or drivers or whoever. Bear that in mind before you start to hit or or hurt an animal with a dog dazer or whatever."
- oooooooh very very macho what a hunk. You must be in the gun lobby too I bet. The point is you make no distinction between hitting or hurting an animal for the fun of it, and hitting or hurting an animal that's attacking you.
Nice attempt at a wind up. However all you've achieved is just to make yourself look more foolish. If you expect an owner to stand by and let you hurt their dog then you're even more foolish than you appear. But then you're the kind that would size up the owner first before deciding how tough you are. Am I right?0 -
Mike, you're still not answering the question, what do I do when a dog attacks? I thought a dog owner might be a good person to know, but after a load of twaddle from you and richardast you still haven't come up with anything. It's a simple enough question.
If a dog attacks me and its owner doesn't do anything, perhaps the owner needs putting down. When I walk a dog I'm responsible for what the dog does.
PS - "Nice attempt at a wind up" - it wasn't intended that way, but it obviously worked all the same! 0 -
Section 3 of the dangerous dogs act covers all dogs in public places:
========================================================================
Keeping dogs under proper control
(1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place—
(a) the owner; and
(b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,
is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
(2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.
(3) If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there—
(a) it injures any person; or
(b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so,
he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both; and a person guilty of an aggravated offence under either of those subsections is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
(5) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the [1871 c. 56.] Dogs Act 1871 (order on complaint that dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control)—
(a) may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have injured any person; and
(b) may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise.
(6) If it appears to a court on a complaint under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 that the dog to which the complaint relates is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered the court may under that section make an order requiring it to be neutered.
(7) The reference in section 1(3) of the [1989 c. 30.] Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 (penalties) to failing to comply with an order under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 to keep a dog under proper control shall include a reference to failing to comply with any other order made under that section; but no order shall be made under that section by virtue of subsection (6) above where the matters complained of arose before the coming into force of that subsection.
========================================================================
I'm making no comment on what 'dangerously out of control' could be, but thought it might be useful for everyone to know the pertinent law for a free running dog in a public place.0 -
Thanks for that simbil1. There are quite a few areas of vagueness in that which could be exploited equally by anti-dog or pro-dog people. For example, as you say, "out of control" is vague, since a dog coming up cheerfully with wagging tail seems threatening to some people, yet others think that a playful bite that takes skin off is friendly therefore ok. There are dogs everywhere so we have to get used to it, just as there are cars so we learn to cross the road. I personally like it when dogs come up and say hello.
Similarly -
"(a) it injures any person; or
(b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so"
Grounds for reasonable apprehension? I don't assume a dog's unfriendly till it bares it teeth and growls or starts trying to bite someone. "reasonable apprehension" is one of those things that has to be battled out in court after the event, so as a guide to the law it's not much help.0 -
By the way, not entirely on a tangent, friends of mine have sheep which they keep on a bit of open land. Occasionally they get bothered by dogs, and another friend of mine has a dog that caused them nearly a grand's worth of sheep deaths years ago. I heard the same story from both sides and realized that totally by chance I know both these people. The sheep onwers have lots of dogs by the way, they're not anti-dog by any means, but the other guy is pretty nonchalant about his dog, I don't think he's ever bothered to train it, it's all easy-going. As it happens, I find the dog fine, but hearing how it mangled a few sheep, and seeing the pictures of the carnage, I realize that one's own image of one's angelic lovely dog is not the image it gives to the rest of the world.0
-
Anyone who ventures onto private land where sheep are kept and doesn't keep their dog(s) on a lead are simply asking for bother, and I believe farmers/land-owners would be well within their rights to shoot the dog if it knowingly distresses the sheep let alone mauls one.
We have two very obedient border collies (pretty intelligent dogs and the choice of most farmers for dealing with sheep) and frequent the Lake District but wouldn't dream of allowing them off in a field containing sheep.0 -
Mike I'm still wondering whether you'll come up with anything useful instead of all this macho playground posturing. I've given up on richardast, he's slunk off having totally side-stepped the question. So far the two of you have shown yourselves to be belligerent and irrational. The old joke about dogs becoming like their owners is reversed here, the two of you have become like badly behaved dogs, yapping and snarling on this thread when you haven't been threatened. Your dogs are probably absolutely fine, maybe it's you guys that need to be on leads.
Thankfully you don't represent dog owners - I know a whole stack of them that are perfectly responsible members of society (perhaps not including the one in the sheep story above). I was hoping to get advice from cyclists that own dogs hence the topic posted on here. Thanks to the others for the few useful replies.0 -
I was once set upon by an angry badger whilst riding along a country road late at night...
Without wishing to offend the largely innocent badger owning public should I have killed it with my allen keys?
0 -
Hi Simbil1,
Thanks for the reference to the dangerous dogs act - most helpful.
The act does contain a definition of 'dangerously out of control', as follows:
10. (3) For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so, but references to a dog injuring a person or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown.
Hope this helps,
Dales0
