[Closed] Got bitten by a dog this morning.....

Has anyone asked about the wellbeing of the dog yet?

no doubt busy on the doggie equivalent to STW complaining that his owner dragged him away from a guy on a bike that had actually stopped and not to kick him - probably have some sort of weekend scoring system they use - extra points for naked unicylist by the knackers, that type of thing

Harry - Have you not seen dog threads on here before? its always amusing watching the dog owners defending their mutts behaviour and saying that everyone else should do this that and the other so as not to upset the dog.

We even get the classic "what if it were a child" on this thread. as well as "slow down and make friends" and the sublimely ridiculous

it to stop and face them, and if they jump up, turn away from them (to the side, so they slip off your legs).......you can try; walking into them as they jump up,

Its one of the guaranteed classics - along with any criticism of someone's children, childcare or parenting or any criticism of someone's driving.

ask people to train their dogs properly and keep them under control and watch the excuses and idiocy appear from the dog owners.

Yes, people buy these biting, yapping, shedding, digging, chasing, stinking, shitting things, take them to the countryside to distribute aforementioned shit and are quite astounded to find that some other people do not share their love of the 4-legged biting shit-spreader and object to being approached by a fur-covered barking knife drawer that may behave in a wholly unpredictable manner.
I slow down for horses and children but speed up for dogs. I DO NOT stop! (In case anyone wonders, yes, I HAVE been bitten by a dog!).
I'm here to balance out the dog-lovers (dog 'lovers'... eugh!, makes me shudder!).

TJ, I believe he was asking what to do if confronted by a dog that was jumping up(hence my advice), not for your extremely limited and narrow minded opinion.

We weren't at this point discussing if it should or shouldn't be doing it, as everyone agree's it shouldn't be, just incase you missed that particular point, as you seem to miss the point 99.99% of the time.

its always amusing watching the dog owners defending their mutts

The saddest thing about this statement, is you don't realise how many people are laughing at you whenever you post your opinion. I suppose, you've got used to people's pity, but I still find to hard to get used to, so I find I get embarrassed for you.

So while the dog owners/experts are about, what's the best way to deal with jumpy yappy dogs ?

Conversely,

Harry - Have you not seen dog threads on here before? its always amusing watching the non-dog owners [s]defending[/s] attacking the[s]ir[/s] mutts behaviour and saying that everyone else should do this that and the other so as not to be upset [s]the dog[/s].

Richc - your lack of insight and understanding is laughable. I have been laughing at you all the way thru this with your ridiculous attitudes.

We even get the classic "what if it were a child" on this thread. as well as "slow down and make friends" and the sublimely ridiculous

"it to stop and face them, and if they jump up, turn away from them (to the side, so they slip off your legs).......you can try; walking into them as they jump up",

really - you guys are pathetic. Train your dogs properly, keep them under control and stop making pathetic excuses for them

Richc - your lack of insight and understanding is laughable. I have been laughing at you all the way thru this with your ridiculous attitudes.

Poor, poor TJ, I feel sorry for you I really do. It really can't be easy getting through life with an IQ of 72. Do you want me to send you a packet of fruit polo's to cheer you up?

If alcohol, tobacco, sugar and dogs were newly discovered today, they would all be banned. We had a need for a dog waaaaay back in the mists of time. We have very little need for the dog now. Working dogs excepted (Police, blind assistance etc). I'm sitting here listening to my neighbour's four dogs barking their f*cking heads off every time a sparrow farts! A terraced house with a tiny yard and four well-fed dogs. When the wind is blowing in the [s]right[/s] wrong direction the smell is disgusting.

To risk going waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy off topic, and confusing TJ again (bless him).

We had a need for a dog waaaaay back in the mists of time.

Dogs, are still useful, for guarding, herding, hunting and companionship, so pretty much what they have always been useful for, so I don't get your point. Just because you personally don't value one of their attributes doesn't mean that they aren't useful per se.

Personally I don't value quite of lot of people/jobs but that doesn't mean that they should be eliminated as this week/year/decade they aren't deemed useful.

So what do you use your dog for?

Guarding, as we got burgled, and my partner was nervous of being in the house alone and companionship as having a dog, as they make you laugh every day as they are clowns with boundless energy, who take joy from simply being alive.

I don't want him to hunt so I don't do that (although I suppose I could take to field trials if I wanted to) and I don't want him to herd as believe or not I don't own any livestock ... 😉

I know a lot of people who hate dogs on here won't believe me, but getting a dog is one of the most social things you can do, as you get to know all your neighbours (and not to be moaned at, although it happens) and you find you will get regularly stopped in the street by strangers to talk about your dog, which can be a pain if you are in a rush, especially as it seems to happen a couple of times a day, every day including in winter.

richc

For what it's worth, I've been reading through this thread and by and large agree with you.
As a dog owner, I completely agree that in an ideal world every dog should be perfectly behaved and do nothing 'wrong' ever.
We can also apply that argument to MTBers but we all know that's idealist.
Dogs have their own brains and aren't remote controlled robots. From time to time they will do something they've been trained not to do (like bikers). Most MTBers actually encourage my dogs to jump up and play (and I do stress most). That's the message they now have programmed into them "bikes = play and chase". They don't play and chase horses, deer, walkers, foxes etc as none of them has ever encouraged it.
This now leaves me in a difficult position. Fortunately most bikers love meeting them, but a few don't which is fair enough and to them I'd like to say sorry.
Dogs, like people vary - some are scared easily, some are aggressive, some just enthusiastic but harmless etc etc. Applying human criteria to dogs or any other animal is just a non-starter.
If you are out in the woods, expect to encounter dogs, horses, walkers and so on. Just don't expect you own 'human' rules to apply to animals. If you do, perhaps you need to give up biking.

I need to offset the happy jolly pro-dog propaganda pics from earlier in the thread.

To quote TJ:

So what do you use your dog for?

[img] [/img]

So yes, I do agree that dogs are useful in the modern world! There are a lot of hungry people in South-East Asia.

Most MTBers actually encourage my dogs to jump up and play (and I do stress most).

minority here - how do i register to opt out?

......oh just remembered there is an opt out - its called the owners keeping dogs that aren't well trained on a lead

I have no real problem with dog per-se, but it does irritate when the dog's owner allows THEIR dog to jump up at me or my son. Now I KNOW the dog is just being friendly and its in their nature. But I dont like it particularly and I don't know how their dog normally behaves, so why can't some owners get it through their THICK skin that some people don't like it? They'd soon moan if a child started rifling through their shopping bags or pulling at their clothes.
Its all about tolerance and consideration on both sides, but its ultimately down to the dog's owner to control their animal around me and my family. In the same why as a parent and guardian I keep my son under control around others!

Its all about tolerance and consideration on both sides, but its ultimately down to the dog's owner to control their animal around me and my family.

I completely agree.

Irritate when the dog's owner allows THEIR dog to jump up at me or my son. Now I KNOW the dog is just being friendly and its in their nature. But I dont like it particularly and I don't know how their dog normally behaves, so why can't some owners get it through their THICK skin that some people don't like it

If you think that's irritating, just imagine how annoying it is to see people encouraging your dog to jump up by patting their chests and rewarding the dog when it does it, especially after you've spent months breaking the habit, but its OK because when you ask them to stop doing it, they respond 'I don't mind, I like dogs to jump up and say hello' ..........

In the same why as a parent and guardian I keep my son under control around others!

What at all times? Do you really believe you son never plays up and irritates others due to his over enthusiasm for life, or whilst he's learning right from wrong?

What at all times? Do you really believe you son never plays up and irritates others due to his over enthusiasm for life, or whilst he's learning right from wrong?

Thats a fair point about people encouraging the dog to jump up. You can't really win I guess.

[i]minority here - how do i register to opt out?

......oh just remembered there is an opt out - its called the owners keeping dogs that aren't well trained on a lead [/i]

Don't encourage my dogs over by stopping and making friendly gestures and then wander why they jump up and fuss you back.
Of course, I fully expect you (antigee) to never be riding anywhere except for bridle paths and other legal places where bikes can be, never riding too fast, never skidding, never exceeding the speed limit in your car etc. If you ever do any of the above, then you have no moral high ground. Your above statement could also read...

...oh just remembered there is an opt out - it's called living in a society and accepting there's more than just me and my bike in this world.

Hang on a minute, you are implying that personal responsibility is a two way street ................... Don't you realise cyclists have an opt out.

Nice one richc 😀

Oh look - they are here again telling humans that their dog has equivalent rights to humans. Its a dog not a human. 🙄

There is no two way street, there is no equivalence. We are humans, it is a dog. we have rights, it does not. You have duties towards your dog and to other people.

Are you really trying to say because you cannot control your dog I have to alter my behaviour to allow for this? 🙄

Look guys its really simple. Just keep your dog under control. Thats all you have to do. If you are so hard of thinking you cannot understand that should be be allowed in charge of a dog?

oh just remembered there is an opt out - it's called living in a society and accepting there's more than just me and my [s]bike[/s] dog in this world.

sorted

Forgive me TandemJeremy, but could you point out where I said they have equivalent rights to humans please. Otherwise that may appear to be an overblown and argumentative comment rather than debate.

It is a two way street.

I do have duties towards my dogs and other people, I expect you to do the same regarding your responsibilities, please do not avoid my points about where you may or may not ride your bikes legally or otherwise.

When riding in popular and busy locations, yes, you may have to alter your behaviour to allow for other countryside users.

antigee - it is I who accepts and promotes there's more than just me and my dog - your crossed through quote therefore is null and void.

I always ride my bike legally offroad - I live in Scotland. I obey the Scottish access code in both the letter and spirit of it including giving way to other users. There is however no requitement for me to give way to dogs. In the access code is a duty to keep the dog under control at all times and under close control where there is livestock. In other words you have a duty to keep your dog out of my way. I do not have a need to compromise my actions for your dog.

dorkingtrailpixie - Member

When riding in popular and busy locations, yes, you may have to alter your behaviour to allow for other countryside users.

We've been through all of this many times, but as a dog owner, your responsibility is to keep it on a leash or under close control. That means ALL of the time. If you're prepared to argue that you can't guarantee how your dog will behave, then a lead is the only option.

Alternatively, bring it into the hills near us and let one of the local shepherds use it for target practice (not that they need much, they usually get it first time.)

There is however no requitement for me to give way to dogs. In the access code is a duty to keep the dog under control at all times and under close control where there is livestock. In other words you have a duty to keep your dog out of my way. I do not have a need to compromise my actions for your dog.

antigee - it is I who accepts and promotes there's more than just me and my dog - your crossed through quote therefore is null and void

all is well with the world then and I'm sure we can sort out at length some other time if its ok for anyone who may or may not have the qualities of a saint to criticise a minority of dog owners for lacking the intent or ability to control their animals

don - if you have the dog under control as you are obliged to there would be no need for me to compromise my actions for it.

Tandem, don't forget that you have a very different idea of what "under control" is, due to your phobia, than the average person which means you generally react in the extreme in any of the dog threads.

That means ALL of the time

This is the problem that people don't seem to get, so lets try a different approach.

Name 2 living things, that are 100% predictable, 100% of the time.

Yup richc - that the bit you don't get. You have a legal obligation to keep your dog under control at all times.

Name two living things that are 100% predictable, 100% of the time

[img] [/img]
Oldest living tree 9,550 year old spruce tree.

[img] [/img]
Britains oldest tree, the 5,000 year old Fortingall Yew

I reckon that yew would have your face off in a minute

I notice from a prevoius post TJ that you state that you legally ride off road, and yet you can dimiss your "legal obligation" to obey the rules of the road when it comes to the red light debate. Whilst it may be different context, you chose to break the law because it suits you, however you cut it.

Can some-one hnd me a spoon?

Clong - yup - however I aknowledge I am breaking the law. Richc believes he does not have to keep his dog under control as do many other dogowners. Thats the difference.

also my RLJ inconveniences no one.

There's not mushroom to debate, these fellows
[img] [/img]
Will have you off your face

So presumably, if richc (and other dog owners) admits to the legalty of letting his dog loose, but continues to do it thats okay then?

No because there is a victim, The dog is only out of control in relation to other people. RLJ as I do it is a victimless crime as I do not inconvenience anyone - infact it increases utility as I do it to avoid getting in the way of cars

So everytime a dog is let off the lead there is a victim? Come on, thats being a bit OTT, dont you think?

Got to log off in a mo so, time to go home and ride (Yay). Not trying to wind you up TJ, end of the day we all break laws every single day and we can all justify them somehow or another. We just apply a bit of reason to the situation, balance the risks v the outcome and generally do what we want based on our morals. I suspect the legallity of the action has little bearing on a majority of our minor transgressions.

No the other way about - the dog is only out of control if there is a victim - thats how it is defined. A dog running around an empty field is not out of control no matter what it is doing. A dog that jumps up on someone is. Your dog can do whatever it wants so long as it does not inconvenience or annoy anyone else (when livestock is around this alters)

dogs do not have to be on a lead - they have to be under control.

A dog running around an empty field is not out of control no matter what it is doing

Are you smoking crack TJ? If a dog is running around a field and won't recall of course its out of control. Your argument is seems to be based around if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it doesn't make any sound.

So just to clarify, you believe if a crime is victimless, then it shouldn't be considered a crime? or should that be, if a crime committed by YOU, and YOU believe (not society) its victimless then its OK, for YOU (and no one else) to do it?

TJ in all seriousness, do you have mental health issues? As you seem to have a lot of symtoms for Dissocial personality disorder. Namely:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.
4. Persistent irritability.

You'll never win this one Tandem until you learn that the world doesn't revolve around you, and while the law is there to protect you, it comes with responsibilities which you apparenty don't want to take.

richc - you really need to look up the legal stuff on this.

The dog is out on control (in a legal sense) in relation to other people and to livestock. If there is no other people or livestock around then it is not out of control in a legal sense. Its like assault. You cannot have an assault without a victim.

My argument is based around understand what the legal position is - not as you are doing sticking your fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala" and inventing all sorts of rubbish to try to justify your unwillingness to take responsibility for controlling your dog.

Can you have a victimless crime? Well thats a whole huge debate in its own right. there certainly is IMO a moral difference between doing something that breaks the law but has no effect on anyone else and doing something that does have an effect on anyone else.

however given how hard you seem to find understanding fairly simple concepts I really doubt a discussion of principles of jurisprudence and of moral considerations in relation to some fairly complex philosophy would be worthwhile.

The basic cornerstones of this sort of issue will have been well discussed by kant. Durkheim, Benthan and Mills I think.

with that I will stop teasing you - but please do have a we think about this and the kennel club has some useful bits for you to read about your responsibilities.

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1052