Get a re-homed MWD. Obedience through the roof and ignores people. Wish I’d re-homed one sooner.

It’s okay, they only bite peoples cocks off on command.

Actually Tom, rather than banning dogs, we should ban leads. It’s almost certain that leads were nearby (but not being used) when the dog attacks occurred, so we should just ban them. Thus, following your highly flawed logic, dog attacks will stop.

Only they won’t will they, just as people wont stop being killed by careless drivers if we ban bicycles. Grow up.

That’s funny. Banning the lead is analogous to banning bicycle helmets and neither are contributory root causes towards the deaths of children. Where as both the bicycle and dog are contributory root causes, just as the dog owner is and the car driver.

It’s just banning the bicycle is easier than making all drivers never ever make mistakes and would be the most expedient CAPA, in our dead kid scenario.

It would at least result in fewer injuries in London.

https://fullfact.org/news/it-more-dangerous-be-pedestrian-cyclist/

Another question, dogs it would appear are effective treatments for depression and suicide prevention. The literature however is pretty shit for dog vs cat comparisons, before you **** cat lovers says we should all get cats.

Soooo, for all those saying dogs have very little utilitarian use outside of working dogs….

https://www.asthealth.org/medications-leading-cause-accidental-poisoning-deaths-children

Maybe more waggy dogs would equal less kids ODing on your happy pills.

That’s funny. Banning the lead is analogous to banning bicycle helmets and neither are contributory root causes towards the deaths of children. Where as both the bicycle and dog are contributory root causes, <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>just as the dog owner is and the car driver</span>.

There, you’ve finally got it – ban dog owners.

A kid can ride a bike and not be hurt by a car. A kid can’t be run over by a car and not be hurt. The car is hardly contributory, it is the cause (well, the driver). Likewise, if you must, so is the dog. There may be other contributory causes, but the root cause of dog attacks is dogs (or their owners)

I have to say your new pseudonym is a distinct regression, Tom

Leads would have prevented all those injuries? Even the ones in the home?

I got nipped as a kid when I went up to my grandparents dog that was in its basket with a bone. I invaded its space and in its mind threatened to take away something valuable to it. It behaved in a wholly predictable and I’d say reasonable way, for a dog. My parents and Grandparents taught me appropriate behaviour, and it never happened again.

Victim blaming? Leads fix everything? Bullshit.  Learning appropriate behaviour is entirely reasonable.

Learning appropriate behaviour is entirely reasonable.

So put your **** dog on a **** lead – this is appropriate behaviour when there are other people about unless you 100% have it at your instant control.

By the time a dog has got to a point that it’s going to kill, being on a lead only offers a modicum of control and it would be very easy for a dog to slip it’s leash. You need a straight jacket really!

”I came very close to kicking it whilst its “owners” plaintively whistled in the distance,”

Actually, if a dog has already broken its recall shouting angrily/lots of distressed energy from the owner isn’t an effective option as they’ll not be very attractive to return to. In a Broken recall scenario they should be on long line recall training before this happens.

Anyway, just taking the dog out for a poo on the neighbours garden, maybe a public footpath.

edited quite a bit, what was in my head was badly reflected by the words that came out of it.

So put your **** dog on a **** lead – this is appropriate behaviour when there are other people about unless you 100% have it at your instant control.

Stop ****** swearing at me  – because nowhere in the 100-odd other posts on this subject, or in any other thread on it, have it disagreed with that. Go back and look and then come back and apologise.

IF YOUR DOG IS NOT 100% UNDER CONTROL IT SHOULD BE ON A LEAD. FULL STOP. IN FACT I’D EVEN BE HAPPY TO LEAD MY DOG EVEN THOUGH IT IS UNDER CONTROL IF IT MAKES PEOPLE FEEL HAPPIER, AND I HAVE WHEN I’VE WALKED WITH FRIENDS WHOSE DAUGHTER DOESN’T LIKE DOGS.

BUT – not everyone does the same and hence why is it so hard to accept that in that imperfect world it is sensible to also know what to do if a dog comes up to you, so you don’t make a perfectly controllable situation into a dangerous one.

Clue: it’s not run away, try to hit or kick it, or beat it senseless with a minipump. IMHO.

IF YOUR DOG IS NOT 100% UNDER CONTROL IT SHOULD BE ON A LEAD.

Is any sentient organism ever under 100 control?

if you want to go pedant mode, 100% with no decimal places would allow for 99.5% control to be considered 100%

Is it possible for a sentient being to be under control 199/200 times. Absolutely.

So yes, it is possible for a sentient being to be 100% under control. Next question 😉

Sorry Jon, I shouldn’t have asterisked at you.

I take your point on knowing how to behave around dogs (or any other animal for that matter – especially fields of excitable cows). However, in the case of dogs, the mitigation in case a member of the public in a public area doesn’t know how to behave around dogs is for the dog to be on a lead of a suitable variety that it can’t slip it. If the dog’s on a lead, and the other member of public stays further than that lead’s length, then there is no way for an incident to occur.

I appreciate that you’re a responsible dog owner, but sadly many are not, with results that are being discussed here.

Is it possible for a sentient being to be under control 199/200 times. Absolutely.

So yes, it is possible for a sentient being to be 100% under control. Next question

Er…dont think much of your maths.

But anyway in the real world I reckon my dog is better behaved than 90% of dogs I see when walking her and she wouldnt reach the 199/200 threshold you talk of. Not wanting an argument about me controlling my dog better, I am happy that she doesnt approach strange people or strange dogs. I just think some on here expect something that is never going to happen. Maybe like I want all car drivers to pay attention, I dont excuse the behaviour or think its right but I have to accept reality.

The teacher part of me also doesnt accept that sentient beings, like kids, can be controlled 199/200!!!

The teacher part of me also doesnt accept that sentient beings, like kids, can be controlled 199/200!!!

The parent part of me agrees re: kids! 😆 I suppose would could ban them too, but who’s going to pay our pensions?

A price worth paying if IMHO

Horrid little rats! You aren’t even allowed to crate train them, absurd! Speaking of the absurd, with no young people, the murder rate would plummet rapidly.

with no young people, the murder rate would plummet rapidly.

Teenage pregnancies would also decrease substantially. I think we’re on to a winner…

Double victory that!

I actually am quite keen on the licensing idea, that and making it easier for authorities to fine owners and if needed take dogs away from people.

I don’t believe you’re going to change attitudes any other way, and even with licensing I don’t think you’ll change attitudes just make it harder to own a dog. The root cause has nothing to do with dogs but a wider societal problem with people being too lazy, selfish, entitled or ignorant to take on what should be their responsibility.

Not that there’s anyone to enforce good dog ownership, so it’s a bit of a moot point.

Er…dont think much of your maths.

Go on, why not? (and your punctuation’s rubbish while we’re at it 😉 )

199/200 = 99.5%, no? Which if we’re not using decimals rounds to 100% (you didn’t use decimals, if you’d said 100.000% I’d have lost the pedant-off at that point)

Anyway, I agree – impossible to control a dog 100.0000% of the time, but putting it on a lead where necessary, or keeping it on a lead when in public places if it habitually runs up to people whether that is with malice or just inquisitiveness in mind, is a good start.  (I’d even say if it is on a lead given some of the old ladies I see with GSD and other strong breeds I’d still wonder if it’s really under control, but again let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good)

@zokes – no worries, I’m trying to recognise that some owners let the rest of us down whether it is with behaviour or shitbags or whatever, and I really would rather they didn’t. But while the situation persists, sensible to have a means to try to deal with it rather than simply say ‘This shouldn’t happen / wouldn’t happen if it was on a lead’.

And again, I’ll reflect that even if you act / react exactly as ‘the experts’ (oh god, another can opens) say, sometimes it can still go wrong, and then the dog and owner should be dealt with absolutely appropriately. Just the same as i can ride on the road perfectly defensively, to try to mitigate the risks of bad driving as much as I can, but there’ll always be the smidsy who knocks you off despite all that.

Just the same as i can ride on the road perfectly defensively, to try to mitigate the risks of bad driving as much as I can, but there’ll always be the smidsy who knocks you off despite all that.

Hence Tom’s wish to ban bikes 😉

Oh, and I reckon if you’d shot for 99.4% you’d have been on safer ground re: A_A

Is it possible for a sentient being to be under control 199/200 times. Absolutely.

So yes, it is possible for a sentient being to be 100% under control

And then

199/200 = 99.5%, no? Which if we’re not using decimals rounds to 100%

Which ever way you fudge it 199/200 does not equal 100%

putting it on a lead where necessary, or keeping it on a lead when in public places if it habitually runs up to people whether that is with malice or just inquisitiveness in mind, is a good start.

I agree and would also had that if you have a dog that chases other dogs in an aggressive manner then it should be on a lead too. But many many people are idiots and many many people who are idiots have dogs too, these people are either too stupid to realise what they are doing is wrong or are too stupid to take actions to prevent it. Going back to the op, if my dog had a thing for chasing bikes I would walk it on a bike path ffs..its not hard.

Yeh, it does.

Q. What is 199/200 as a percentage? Give your answer to the nearest whole number.

Q. What is 199/200 as a percentage?

I bet you put 110% effort into this didnt you!!

Yep. And 220 times out of 200 I’ve been proven right 😉

Yesterday I had a positive ‘dog experience’.

Out walking (in the Torrs, New Mills, High Peak – many mtbers will know it well) I came across a German shepherd on its own. There was nowhere for me to get away from it as a river on one side and cliffs on the other. Then I spotted 2 elderly chaps behind a wall. I shouted but they couldn’t hear me because they had hats, scarfs and hoods up. So I ended up walking a little closer and shouting as loud as I could. One chap called the dog over. It was so well trained, sitting straight away behind the man. He held onto the collar. He asked me was I scared of dogs and after answering he gave a proper apology.

It was great coming across an understanding dog owner with a very well trained dog. Oh how I wish there were more owners like that.