View Poll Results: Should dog owners keep their unleashed dogs from invading the space of leashed dogs?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • Unleashed dogs should not be allowed to approach leashed dogs

    16 80.00%
  • unleashed dogs should be able to approach leashed dogs

    5 25.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 118

Thread: How Far Should an Offleash Dog or Dogs Go Before Our Leashed Dogs Should React?

  1. #11

    Default

    So funny with this forum.

    I thought forums were there for people to have intense discussions.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion first knowing the facts of each person (Like i was tyrying to get across).

    BIG DOG OWNERS SHOULD KEEP THEIR DOGS OR LEASHES WHENEVER OTHER DOGS ARE AROUND.

    And as for the comment about the LONG TERM MEMBER
    Big whoop if she can't handle a different opinion she should be on a forum. Her Minions should keep their 3rd grade attitude off this forum.

    REPORT ME PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

  2. #12

    Default

    Why should we? My dog is well trained, always under EFFECTIVE CONTROL (as required by law) and is incredibly friendly. You don't want to be around off leash dogs, simple, stick to the footpaths. Larger dogs as a rule are always better trained than small dogs. More effort goes into training them than people like you put into your yappy little dog. (The good small dog owners are excluded from this)

    I'm nobodies minion, but I think you are nothing but a troll.

    If you had just stated your opinion then there wouldn't be a problem. You out right ATTACKED another member - not only is that against forum rules (which you have been reported for btw) but it is just plain nasty.

    Small dog owners like you - (Not the amazing ones that I usually have dealings with on this forum and around the place) - should get themselves an education and shouldn't own a dog until they understand dog behavior.

    Yep you're a fantastic dog owner - you were responsible enough to keep your dog safe while workers worked on your property, big round of applause on that one.

    You are a troll, go back under your bridge trollie, you've already made a complete ass of your self.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fuller.k View Post

    BIG DOG OWNERS SHOULD KEEP THEIR DOGS OR LEASHES WHENEVER OTHER DOGS ARE AROUND.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    IMHO ALL dog owners should keep their dog on leash and under control (the latter as practicable to your dogs' level of training/ confidence etc), unless at home, in an off leash area, or competing or participating in an off leash exercise. There may be a few more exceptions I haven't though of, but you get the gist. Fuller.k, this includes little dogs.

    AND

    ALL dog owners have an obligation IMHO to have a rudimentary understanding of dog behavior and a dog's needs.

    Treating a dog like one's child, or actually believing a dog can take a child's place is, again IMHO dangerous and irresponsible thinking. My dogs (and I believe I speak for many members here) are loved, valued companions who ARE members of my family. But they are not human, they are not children,
    they have needs different in some aspects to humans and I WILL NOT OBLIGATE MY DOG TO BE SOMETHING HE OR SHE ISN'T TO FULFIL A PSYCHOLOGICAL HOLE WITHIN ME.

    Fuller.k, forums are for discussion and learning. But it is a two way street and you cannot expect to come here and in your very first post fly in the face of knowledgeable dog people and accepted dog knowledge and not expect responses from others which contradict your flawed thinking.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    IMHO ALL dog owners should keep their dog on leash and under control (the latter as practicable to your dogs' level of training/ confidence etc), unless at home, in an off leash area, or competing or participating in an off leash exercise. There may be a few more exceptions I haven't though of, but you get the gist. Fuller.k, this includes little dogs.

    AND

    ALL dog owners have an obligation IMHO to have a rudimentary understanding of dog behavior and a dog's needs.

    Treating a dog like one's child, or actually believing a dog can take a child's place is, again IMHO dangerous and irresponsible thinking. My dogs (and I believe I speak for many members here) are loved, valued companions who ARE members of my family. But they are not human, they are not children,
    they have needs different in some aspects to humans and I WILL NOT OBLIGATE MY DOG TO BE SOMETHING HE OR SHE ISN'T TO FULFIL A PSYCHOLOGICAL HOLE WITHIN ME.

    Fuller.k, forums are for discussion and learning. But it is a two way street and you cannot expect to come here and in your very first post fly in the face of knowledgeable dog people and accepted dog knowledge and not expect responses from others which contradict your flawed thinking.
    I agree with the first part BUT I do walk Batty off leash and do proofing exercises in different areas (one being the school oval where I've got permission to work with my dog). I have complete verbal control of him at all times. He does not cross a road or chase anything unless he has permission. He won't run up to and say hi to random people anymore, nor to their animals unless I release him to do so. If I see other dogs I recall Batty and put him back on leash if they're on leash. If they're not I put him in a sit stay at my side and watch the other dog closely. We have a bit of a problem with wandering dogs around my area and as I can command Batty to go home while I catch the wanderer I feel fairly safe doing that.

    I agree completely with everything else you've said. You are, as always, far more eloquent than I

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Talking

    How sad are the politics that exist in social networking or forum sites. The moderators know well at best, of the discrepancies that can result from senior members to those whom are newbies. Much has been researched with regard to this. My posts appear to have got the repliers to the thread, offside. I have no problem with that, as I believe each is entitiled to the democracy in which one puts to print, providing that contentions are well supported in a literary sense.

    My original comments reflect my stand and the support that I gave replies before mine, on the Vent thread regarding unleashed dogs imposing on those that were responsible and law abiding citizens, just out walking their dog on leashes. The first reply was filled with assumption and had no basis. I do not remember at any stage stating that my GSD that had passed away, was old. Nor did I take lightly the assumption (2nd) that she was somehow being replaced with a cute fluffy GS puppy that I was smitten with. (3rd-assumption-paraphrased, that I was not a reputable nor responsible dog owner as I supported the fact that' unleashed dogs getting into my leashed dog and causing injury had an impact on our walking experience). The advice, or rigid standard set forth from a senior member that appears to have no err nor the concept of any notion of the fact 'a dog, is indeed a dog and all dogs are capable of error.was supported by the authoritarian notion of I quote: Bloody well behave himself. I find the further chast' as extremely narrow-minded- the reference that ones dog is bombproof and that I am shunning my responsibility somehow. Where I ask, was I shunning my responsibility? Clearly there is a double standard between that and the fact that the replie and support for the reply disregarded the fact that the previous rotti of the replier with such a rigid concept, took a man to the ground, my contention=not bombproof.

    Furthermore, I provided documentation had any bothered to see the link as to why I believe that dogs should not necessarily be bombproof. No mention, unfortunately- was given to the assumptions what proved to be wrong, nor any apology for assumptions. Confabulating to say the least, previous replies state that one does not go to dog parks, then in the next sentence-mentions the two dog parks they attend, where a slander is made further to reference and style of clothing it is assumed small dog owners attire themselves in. What relevance does a dog owners, be it small, medium or large-attire have to do with general respect for their canine or in some vocabularies, pet (each to their own- or other vocabularies, working dog)? Moreover, I personally have been accused of placing my dog at risk and myself and asked why I would do that? Bizarre assumption, so bizarre in fact, it holds absolutely no merit. Assuming that a following thread from a small dog owner indicated to me that the particular individual was trying to stick to the debate actually. An assumption again was enforced, that the particular person was in breach by picking up their small dog. My reference to the same was kept in context with the fact that offleash small dogs are clutched up by their owners. Where in the post did the individual state that their dog was offleash? I was offended by the insinuation that my GSD Dakota was a substitute or surrogate child, at least I interpreted it that way and can perhaps empathise with the harshness of anothers judgement by individulas or a group mentality based on their own tunnel vision (another word for narrow mindedness-whats the difference, really/) Hugely offensive to myself as the proud and honoured owner of four GSDogs throughout my history. Perhaps if one were to engage their brain before engaging their keyboard, they may understand the entirety of the context in which it is delivered, as further critiquing the literature would have revealed. A famous quote states , it is better to be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
    The article link I provided as to why dogs on leashes should not be bombproof was supportive of my point, for those who had even bothered to read it-yet no mention was given to that.

    There appears from my perpective as clearly an outsider and not a senior member that there is a degree of collusion happening within this thread, quite sad really and not reflective of responsiblility or accountability. On further perusal, I indeed, having spent the amount of money to rehabilitate my dog, would be conscious of the fact that unleashed dogs, particularly those of heavier weight or height could very well place my fragile (quite derrogatory comment) or for want of a better word-at further risk of injury, dog at risk of just that.

    I feel the more responsible approach to this thread is to set a poll, which I have done. Cheers, Dakotas mum, or owner, or irresponsible, fluffy puppy smitten associate. I feel that I may report some posts also. Cheers

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    FNQ
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    I used to own a small dog.

    I was walking her one day, waiting for my obedience class to start and watching the agility, where dogs were off leash.

    I heard a 'watch out!' and looked up to see a large dog running towards Bella and I with no intention of stopping. I will admit that I picked up Bella and growled the dog as an instant reaction.

    I now own a Great Dane.

    I do not keep her on leash where it is allowed and safe to have her off leash while other dogs are around. She will not attack another dog, except under extreme circumstances, like defending me. I have seen JRTs strut up to my dog and put my dog, the second largest breed, in her place. They were dominant over my dog, and they played happily after that.

    It's not size that maters in this argument. It's temperament and the owners judgement about their own dog. My Bella was a very different dog in temperament to Lacey. And that is because I raised Bella and Lacey different. I have no qualms about letting Lacey off leash to play with other dogs because I know that even though she is large, she is well adjusted and socialised. I wouldn't have ever let Bella off leash around other dogs, because she was timid and could vey well have become dog aggressive if she had an experience that's scared her, I.e another dog coming to play with her and getting in her face because she wasn't socialised right. It all depends on how well the owners know their own dogs and their trust in them. No, you can't control other people's dogs, but you can educate yourself to recognize the signs of playfulness and aggression, and decide from their whether you think it is safe.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota_Chey View Post
    How sad are the politics that exist in social networking or forum sites. The moderators know well at best, of the discrepancies that can result from senior members to those whom are newbies. Much has been researched with regard to this. My posts appear to have got the repliers to the thread, offside. I have no problem with that, as I believe each is entitiled to the democracy in which one puts to print, providing that contentions are well supported in a literary sense.

    My original comments reflect my stand and the support that I gave replies before mine, on the Vent thread regarding unleashed dogs imposing on those that were responsible and law abiding citizens, just out walking their dog on leashes. The first reply was filled with assumption and had no basis. I do not remember at any stage stating that my GSD that had passed away, was old. Nor did I take lightly the assumption (2nd) that she was somehow being replaced with a cute fluffy GS puppy that I was smitten with. (3rd-assumption-paraphrased, that I was not a reputable nor responsible dog owner as I supported the fact that' unleashed dogs getting into my leashed dog and causing injury had an impact on our walking experience). The advice, or rigid standard set forth from a senior member that appears to have no err nor the concept of any notion of the fact 'a dog, is indeed a dog and all dogs are capable of error.was supported by the authoritarian notion of I quote: Bloody well behave himself. I find the further chast' as extremely narrow-minded- the reference that ones dog is bombproof and that I am shunning my responsibility somehow. Where I ask, was I shunning my responsibility? Clearly there is a double standard between that and the fact that the replie and support for the reply disregarded the fact that the previous rotti of the replier with such a rigid concept, took a man to the ground, my contention=not bombproof.

    Furthermore, I provided documentation had any bothered to see the link as to why I believe that dogs should not necessarily be bombproof. No mention, unfortunately- was given to the assumptions what proved to be wrong, nor any apology for assumptions. Confabulating to say the least, previous replies state that one does not go to dog parks, then in the next sentence-mentions the two dog parks they attend, where a slander is made further to reference and style of clothing it is assumed small dog owners attire themselves in. What relevance does a dog owners, be it small, medium or large-attire have to do with general respect for their canine or in some vocabularies, pet (each to their own- or other vocabularies, working dog)? Moreover, I personally have been accused of placing my dog at risk and myself and asked why I would do that? Bizarre assumption, so bizarre in fact, it holds absolutely no merit. Assuming that a following thread from a small dog owner indicated to me that the particular individual was trying to stick to the debate actually. An assumption again was enforced, that the particular person was in breach by picking up their small dog. My reference to the same was kept in context with the fact that offleash small dogs are clutched up by their owners. Where in the post did the individual state that their dog was offleash? I was offended by the insinuation that my GSD Dakota was a substitute or surrogate child, at least I interpreted it that way and can perhaps empathise with the harshness of anothers judgement by individulas or a group mentality based on their own tunnel vision (another word for narrow mindedness-whats the difference, really/) Hugely offensive to myself as the proud and honoured owner of four GSDogs throughout my history. Perhaps if one were to engage their brain before engaging their keyboard, they may understand the entirety of the context in which it is delivered, as further critiquing the literature would have revealed. A famous quote states , it is better to be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
    The article link I provided as to why dogs on leashes should not be bombproof was supportive of my point, for those who had even bothered to read it-yet no mention was given to that.

    There appears from my perpective as clearly an outsider and not a senior member that there is a degree of collusion happening within this thread, quite sad really and not reflective of responsiblility or accountability. On further perusal, I indeed, having spent the amount of money to rehabilitate my dog, would be conscious of the fact that unleashed dogs, particularly those of heavier weight or height could very well place my fragile (quite derrogatory comment) or for want of a better word-at further risk of injury, dog at risk of just that.

    I feel the more responsible approach to this thread is to set a poll, which I have done. Cheers, Dakotas mum, or owner, or irresponsible, fluffy puppy smitten associate. I feel that I may report some posts also. Cheers
    Your post wasn't the one that had others offside.

    In direct response to your queston, the law requires that you have effective control of your dog in any public place at ALL times. This means being able to recall them to you BEFORE they get into another dogs face, regardless of size, shape or status. Your dog is not allowed to be a nuisance to others at all.

    I was put offside by the outright attack made on Bernie. Bernie made no assumptions about you or your dog, but put forth their general opinion. In your 2nd paragraph, can you quote the 'assumptions' that were made about your past and current dogs because I can't find ANYTHING remotely like that.

    You as the owner are responsible for YOUR dog's behavior - No matter what the situation is. No excuses. That is the be all and end all of it. How you train your dog, how you treat your dog and how you behave in the face of perceived danger are what determines your dogs behavior.

    ETA: Have just read the article. That is what I would call normal behavior for a family dog, and no-one here would criticise the wolfhound cross. I don't expect my dog to be infallible, I do expect his obedience. I am proud of the fact that I CAN and do call him away from ANYTHING - even in full prey drive chasing a rabbit (we have feral rabbits here) across a field. I have practised this over and over again. I train for these things. I have no doubt that should another animal attack me my dog will do what he can, but I do not expect him to save me. That is not his 'job'. It never will be. It is MY job, MY responsibility to keep him safe, no matter what, so I train and proof and train and proof under all kinds of distractions, in all kinds of locations so I know I can rely on him to listen to me.
    Last edited by AngelanBatty; 05-12-2011 at 01:32 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Dakota_Chey:

    On 05/07/2011 'Bernie' wrote:

    ''Its sad to lose an old dog. And then having said stuff like "never again!" you've got your bundle of fluff, and you're smitten.''

    Yes, Bernie made some assumptions, but may I remind you that you did not specify until the post following Bernie's that Cheyanne was 7, special needs, and passed due to a seizure.

    Regardless, I'm at a loss as to how this could have insulted you so?

    If you go back and read through the replies in thus thread, you will see it was the posts made by 'fuller.k' that had us debating...

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota_Chey View Post
    How sad are the politics that exist in social networking or forum sites. The moderators know well at best, of the discrepancies that can result from senior members to those whom are newbies. Much has been researched with regard to this. My posts appear to have got the repliers to the thread, offside. I have no problem with that, as I believe each is entitiled to the democracy in which one puts to print, providing that contentions are well supported in a literary sense.

    My original comments reflect my stand and the support that I gave replies before mine, on the Vent thread regarding unleashed dogs imposing on those that were responsible and law abiding citizens, just out walking their dog on leashes. The first reply was filled with assumption and had no basis. I do not remember at any stage stating that my GSD that had passed away, was old. Nor did I take lightly the assumption (2nd) that she was somehow being replaced with a cute fluffy GS puppy that I was smitten with. (3rd-assumption-paraphrased, that I was not a reputable nor responsible dog owner as I supported the fact that' unleashed dogs getting into my leashed dog and causing injury had an impact on our walking experience). The advice, or rigid standard set forth from a senior member that appears to have no err nor the concept of any notion of the fact 'a dog, is indeed a dog and all dogs are capable of error.was supported by the authoritarian notion of I quote: Bloody well behave himself. I find the further chast' as extremely narrow-minded- the reference that ones dog is bombproof and that I am shunning my responsibility somehow. Where I ask, was I shunning my responsibility? Clearly there is a double standard between that and the fact that the replie and support for the reply disregarded the fact that the previous rotti of the replier with such a rigid concept, took a man to the ground, my contention=not bombproof.

    Furthermore, I provided documentation had any bothered to see the link as to why I believe that dogs should not necessarily be bombproof. No mention, unfortunately- was given to the assumptions what proved to be wrong, nor any apology for assumptions. Confabulating to say the least, previous replies state that one does not go to dog parks, then in the next sentence-mentions the two dog parks they attend, where a slander is made further to reference and style of clothing it is assumed small dog owners attire themselves in. What relevance does a dog owners, be it small, medium or large-attire have to do with general respect for their canine or in some vocabularies, pet (each to their own- or other vocabularies, working dog)? Moreover, I personally have been accused of placing my dog at risk and myself and asked why I would do that? Bizarre assumption, so bizarre in fact, it holds absolutely no merit. Assuming that a following thread from a small dog owner indicated to me that the particular individual was trying to stick to the debate actually. An assumption again was enforced, that the particular person was in breach by picking up their small dog. My reference to the same was kept in context with the fact that offleash small dogs are clutched up by their owners. Where in the post did the individual state that their dog was offleash? I was offended by the insinuation that my GSD Dakota was a substitute or surrogate child, at least I interpreted it that way and can perhaps empathise with the harshness of anothers judgement by individulas or a group mentality based on their own tunnel vision (another word for narrow mindedness-whats the difference, really/) Hugely offensive to myself as the proud and honoured owner of four GSDogs throughout my history. Perhaps if one were to engage their brain before engaging their keyboard, they may understand the entirety of the context in which it is delivered, as further critiquing the literature would have revealed. A famous quote states , it is better to be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
    The article link I provided as to why dogs on leashes should not be bombproof was supportive of my point, for those who had even bothered to read it-yet no mention was given to that.

    There appears from my perpective as clearly an outsider and not a senior member that there is a degree of collusion happening within this thread, quite sad really and not reflective of responsiblility or accountability. On further perusal, I indeed, having spent the amount of money to rehabilitate my dog, would be conscious of the fact that unleashed dogs, particularly those of heavier weight or height could very well place my fragile (quite derrogatory comment) or for want of a better word-at further risk of injury, dog at risk of just that.

    I feel the more responsible approach to this thread is to set a poll, which I have done. Cheers, Dakotas mum, or owner, or irresponsible, fluffy puppy smitten associate. I feel that I may report some posts also. Cheers
    No one accused you of replacing your old dog with a cute little fluffy that you were smitten with. The comment Bernie made (in the "Just a Vent" thread) was meant in a nice way and you have just read into it too much.
    Its sad to lose an old dog. And then having said stuff like "never again!" you've got your bundle of fluff, and you're smitten.
    This isn't accusing just a fact most people lose a dog and say never again will they love a dog like their oldie next thing they know they are in love all over again.

    Outside of this comment I see no other comment in this thread or the other that was attacking you or accusing you of anything?? Your getting very defensive. Who insinuated that your GSD was a substitute child?? I think you missed the post by fuller.k which myself and Angela were replying to. Not to you in ANYway.


    Perhaps if one were to engage their brain before engaging their keyboard,
    I think this is advice you yourself should take on board.
    Last edited by Keira & Phoenix; 05-12-2011 at 02:36 PM.

  10. #20

    Default

    One warning only this time

    Pull your heads in. Discuss without being rude, defensive and insulting.

    One more hiccup in this thread and the offenders will be be suspended... no matter how long they have been members here for.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •