Dog owners (rant)

Stevo_666

shirley_basso said:

You may find they might prioritise giving your dogs a good shoeing if they get too close, as an intolerant dog owner.

Really? How would they work out out who's an intolerant dog owner and why would they then decide to attack their dogs? Sounds like a stupid thing to say.

ddraver

I'd be more worried about the out of control dog "roaming free" all over your dog's tbf....

After all, it's their freedom, right?

shirley_basso

Stevo_666 said:

shirley_basso said:

You may find they might prioritise giving your dogs a good shoeing if they get too close, as an intolerant dog owner.

Really? How would they work out out who's an intolerant dog owner and why would they then decide to attack their dogs? Sounds like a stupid thing to say.

someone who's being attacked by a dog whose owner doesn't have it under control, when it should do

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

.

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

The discussion was regarding letting dogs off their lead without having full control of them. If your dogs are under control off the lead then great but if they are running up to other people / dogs who may not want that and the response is 'they should go somewhere else then, I'm allowed to let them off the lead' that would suggest quite a high level of selfish behaviour wouldn't you say?

No. Mine don't cause that problem as mentioned.

If dogs are allowed off the lead in certain place and not in others then those that don't want to ever be approached by a dog can choose accordingly.

You however, appear to displaying a sense of entitlement as seem to you think you should be able to go wherever you want and never ever be bothered by a dog.

What do you mean by "be bothered by" in this context?

Whatever Pross wants it to mean I guess.

Why? You're the one who use the word "bothered". I haven't used it anywhere on this thread as far as I can see. If you're going to make an argument at least be able to back it up when someone challenges your choice of words.

I don't care tbh. Pangolin brought it up.

No... you bought it up, I asked what you meant by it.

See reply to Pross above.

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

The discussion was regarding letting dogs off their lead without having full control of them. If your dogs are under control off the lead then great but if they are running up to other people / dogs who may not want that and the response is 'they should go somewhere else then, I'm allowed to let them off the lead' that would suggest quite a high level of selfish behaviour wouldn't you say?

No. Mine don't cause that problem as mentioned.

If dogs are allowed off the lead in certain place and not in others then those that don't want to ever be approached by a dog can choose accordingly.

You however, appear to displaying a sense of entitlement as seem to you think you should be able to go wherever you want and never ever be bothered by a dog.

It's the dog owners responsibility to ensure their dog remains under control at all times even if they are allowed off the lead. If they are running uninvited up to other people and / or dogs then they are not under control.

You should probably take a look at this

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public

Overview
It’s against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control anywhere, such as:

in a public place
in a private place, for example a neighbour’s house or garden
in the owner’s home
The law applies to all dogs.

You can report a dog that’s out of control.

Some types of dogs are banned.

Out of control
Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:

injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them
A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply:

it attacks someone’s animal
the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal

FWIW I think the bit in bold is classic Government website over-simplification as it suggests a dog could be deemed out of control if it barked at someone and they went running to the police to say they thought it was going to bite them. That said, it's easier to defend yourself if you have your dog on a lead than if you've allowed it to run up to them.

I know. Sounds like you problem is a combination of people not doing what they should and you being a bit sensitive about it.

Anyway, as you can see my two mutts are very vicious and intimidating...

Ah, yes - case won. A picture of your dogs in a single photo would be all the evidence you need. Luckily I have this one if I ever find my hound accused of being out of control so I'm covered too.

It's important for dogs well being to be able to have some freedom to run and roam in my view. I'm going to prioritise that over what a minority of intolerant and over sensitive people want.

I don’t think anyone has said they shouldn’t have freedom to run and roam. It’s running up to other people and animals that people have been complaining about.

I love seeing a well trained, well behaved dog running free and responding to a recall. I’d love to be able to do that but, like the vast majority of dog owners, my dog doesn’t have that level of consistency so he stays on the lead.

The only times I let him off are on wide open beaches when I can see it is clear for hundred of metres or by hiring a field.

pblakeney

I'm sure John Rendall would say this was just a friendly pussycat that wouldn't hurt a sole. Everyone happy walking by?

Background for relevance - https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/londoner-who-famously-bought-lion-22880943

First.Aspect

Hands up anyone who understands that dogs and cats are different species?

pblakeney

Hands up anyone who understands that the principle is the same?

bonk_king

laurentian said:

pinno said:

laurentian said:

Why can't dogs have the same "rights" as cats?

So cats have the legal right to do what ever they like and dogs need to be kept on a short leash.

This is what I don't get! (and I had a JR just like that!)

I guess we don't hear too many stories of cats killing people! Although rare, and as "nice" as most dogs are, the odd one that turns rogue once in a while just throws a blanket over the rest.

It would be interesting to see what happened if somebody got mauled to death by a cat! Our cat, a savannah, fetched home a squealing young fox in its jaws last year. It let it go at the back door and the fox legged it.

Some of the more exotic cats you can get nowadays have the potential to do damage to the very young/old, but I don't really see a cat doing that. But dogs, as shown many times, do.

briantrumpet

bonk_king said:

laurentian said:

pinno said:

laurentian said:

Why can't dogs have the same "rights" as cats?

So cats have the legal right to do what ever they like and dogs need to be kept on a short leash.

This is what I don't get! (and I had a JR just like that!)

I guess we don't hear too many stories of cats killing people! Although rare, and as "nice" as most dogs are, the odd one that turns rogue once in a while just throws a blanket over the rest.

It would be interesting to see what happened if somebody got mauled to death by a cat! Our cat, a savannah, fetched home a squealing young fox in its jaws last year. It let it go at the back door and the fox legged it.

Some of the more exotic cats you can get nowadays have the potential to do damage to the very young/old, but I don't really see a cat doing that. But dogs, as shown many times, do.

Two of my neighbours were hospitalised by one cat: when they sink they teeth into joints, infections get in deep. One was in for five days, including i/v drugs.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

Hands up anyone who understands that the principle is the same?

It isn't though. Why didn't you chose a wolf?

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Hands up anyone who understands that the principle is the same?

It isn't though. Why didn't you chose a wolf?

Cos I don't know of someone walking a wolf down the street off the leash.
If you do then yes, the same principle applies.

PS - Can I use this argument? "My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time."

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Hands up anyone who understands that the principle is the same?

It isn't though. Why didn't you chose a wolf?

Cos I don't know of someone walking a wolf down the street off the leash.
If you do then yes, the same principle applies.

PS - Can I use this argument? "My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time."

I'm not following your reasoning.

Does one of your neighbours own a lion?

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Hands up anyone who understands that the principle is the same?

It isn't though. Why didn't you chose a wolf?

Cos I don't know of someone walking a wolf down the street off the leash.
If you do then yes, the same principle applies.

PS - Can I use this argument? "My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time."

I'm not following your reasoning.

Does one of your neighbours own a lion?

You didn't read the link supplied for relevance did you?

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

bonk_king said:

laurentian said:

pinno said:

laurentian said:

Why can't dogs have the same "rights" as cats?

So cats have the legal right to do what ever they like and dogs need to be kept on a short leash.

This is what I don't get! (and I had a JR just like that!)

I guess we don't hear too many stories of cats killing people! Although rare, and as "nice" as most dogs are, the odd one that turns rogue once in a while just throws a blanket over the rest.

It would be interesting to see what happened if somebody got mauled to death by a cat! Our cat, a savannah, fetched home a squealing young fox in its jaws last year. It let it go at the back door and the fox legged it.

Some of the more exotic cats you can get nowadays have the potential to do damage to the very young/old, but I don't really see a cat doing that. But dogs, as shown many times, do.

Two of my neighbours were hospitalised by one cat: when they sink they teeth into joints, infections get in deep. One was in for five days, including i/v drugs.

I think vets take antibiotics straightaway with a cat bite.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

bonk_king said:

laurentian said:

pinno said:

laurentian said:

Why can't dogs have the same "rights" as cats?

So cats have the legal right to do what ever they like and dogs need to be kept on a short leash.

This is what I don't get! (and I had a JR just like that!)

I guess we don't hear too many stories of cats killing people! Although rare, and as "nice" as most dogs are, the odd one that turns rogue once in a while just throws a blanket over the rest.

It would be interesting to see what happened if somebody got mauled to death by a cat! Our cat, a savannah, fetched home a squealing young fox in its jaws last year. It let it go at the back door and the fox legged it.

Some of the more exotic cats you can get nowadays have the potential to do damage to the very young/old, but I don't really see a cat doing that. But dogs, as shown many times, do.

Two of my neighbours were hospitalised by one cat: when they sink they teeth into joints, infections get in deep. One was in for five days, including i/v drugs.

I think vets take antibiotics straightaway with a cat bite.

That appears to be the advice. Delay can lead to amputation of fingers, it seems.

pangolin

Dog bites aren't exactly sterile chaps.

briantrumpet

pangolin said:

Dog bites aren't exactly sterile chaps.

Indeed not, but I think there's something about where cats bite, the sharpness of their teeth, and the bacteria, that makes them extra risky.

First.Aspect

How often are you lot bitten by cats, and what on earth are you doing to induce this?

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Hands up anyone who understands that the principle is the same?

It isn't though. Why didn't you chose a wolf?

Cos I don't know of someone walking a wolf down the street off the leash.
If you do then yes, the same principle applies.

PS - Can I use this argument? "My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time."

I'm not following your reasoning.

Does one of your neighbours own a lion?

You didn't read the link supplied for relevance did you?

It was about a bloke who bought a big cat and took it for a walk in London 50 years ago. None of which would be legal now I don't think.

Still can't link that story to letting a dog off a lead on Ashtead common or somewhere like that.

Is it a thin end of the wedge type argument? Mrs Indignant from Islington writes, "If we allow hamsters to roam free willy nilly, then soon there will be hippos in the serpentine, and we all know how dangerous they are!

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Hands up anyone who understands that the principle is the same?

It isn't though. Why didn't you chose a wolf?

Cos I don't know of someone walking a wolf down the street off the leash.
If you do then yes, the same principle applies.

PS - Can I use this argument? "My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time."

I'm not following your reasoning.

Does one of your neighbours own a lion?

You didn't read the link supplied for relevance did you?

It was about a bloke who bought a big cat and took it for a walk in London 50 years ago. None of which would be legal now I don't think.

...

Took the lion for a walk regularly. The fear is the same for those that have it.
Anyway, the point I have obviously failed to make is exactly the same point that you made earlier. Take the win, I'm done.

Wheelspinner

Blimey, this thread makes The Helmet Wars look civil.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Hands up anyone who understands that the principle is the same?

It isn't though. Why didn't you chose a wolf?

Cos I don't know of someone walking a wolf down the street off the leash.
If you do then yes, the same principle applies.

PS - Can I use this argument? "My argument was that if you want a dog, make sure you have some places to take it to run around off a lead. So not a suggestion that leads are not needed, but instead a suggestion that dog owners make the effort to take their animals places where its safe for them to be off a lead. Too many dogs don't get this because the owners can't be bothered or don't have time."

I'm not following your reasoning.

Does one of your neighbours own a lion?

You didn't read the link supplied for relevance did you?

It was about a bloke who bought a big cat and took it for a walk in London 50 years ago. None of which would be legal now I don't think.

Still can't link that story to letting a dog off a lead on Ashtead common or somewhere like that.

Is it a thin end of the wedge type argument? Mrs Indignant from Islington writes, "If we allow hamsters to roam free willy nilly, then soon there will be hippos in the serpentine, and we all know how dangerous they are!

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

pangolin said:

Dog bites aren't exactly sterile chaps.

Indeed not, but I think there's something about where cats bite, the sharpness of their teeth, and the bacteria, that makes them extra risky.

It's always good when random knowledge is actually supported by the internet!

Why do cat bites get infected so easily?

When a cat bites, its sharp canine teeth easily puncture the skin, leaving small, but deep, wounds in the skin.

These punctures rapidly seal over, trapping bacteria from the cat's mouth under the skin of the bite victim, where they can easily multiply. A similar type of injury happens with cat scratches: the extremely sharp, curved nails penetrate deep into the skin, essentially injecting bacteria deep into the puncture wound. Depending on the location and depth of the wound, the bacteria can spread in the surrounding tissues causing a condition called cellulitis.

First.Aspect

I've never been bitten by a cat, or had a puncture wound from a cat claw. Plenty of swipes, but those don't cause puncture wounds.

So I ask again, how are you managing to scare a cat so badly and for long enough to receive these injuries?

And I use the word "scare" deliberately, because that is the only scenario I can think of.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

I've never been bitten by a cat, or had a puncture wound from a cat claw. Plenty of swipes, but those don't cause puncture wounds.

So I ask again, how are you managing to scare a cat so badly and for long enough to receive these injuries?

And I use the word "scare" deliberately, because that is the only scenario I can think of.

In my opening comment, I mentioned vets. It doesn't take too much imagination to see how vets might get bitten.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

I've never been bitten by a cat, or had a puncture wound from a cat claw. Plenty of swipes, but those don't cause puncture wounds.

So I ask again, how are you managing to scare a cat so badly and for long enough to receive these injuries?

And I use the word "scare" deliberately, because that is the only scenario I can think of.

In my opening comment, I mentioned vets. It doesn't take too much imagination to see how vets might get bitten.

Riiight. I can at least assess the relevance now.

photonic69

Wow! This is a pretty polarised debate! I'm not a dog owner but I do like dogs. It's just the owners I can't stand. Insufferable, entitled anuses.

photonic69

Duplicate.

Tashman

First.Aspect said:

I've never been bitten by a cat, or had a puncture wound from a cat claw. Plenty of swipes, but those don't cause puncture wounds.

So I ask again, how are you managing to scare a cat so badly and for long enough to receive these injuries?

And I use the word "scare" deliberately, because that is the only scenario I can think of.

My wife inadvertently stepped on ours years back. Poor old thing didn't take too kindly to it. Was definitely defensive though.

Stevo_666

photonic69 said:

Wow! This is a pretty polarised debate! I'm not a dog owner but I do like dogs. It's just the owners I can't stand. Insufferable, entitled anuses.

There are about 10m dogs in the UK and close on 7m households who have at least one. That's a lot of insufferable, entitled anuses. Although in their defence they don't all make sweeping generalisations