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 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 118

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

  1. #41

    Default

    I just went to the dog park with my 3.

    At the gate was a lady with an Airedale, she grabbed the dog so I could get in and it was lunging and growling.
    She assured me that he was friendly, just over excited and wanted to play.

    I was very apprehensive about taking my dogs in but as soon as we stepped through the gate (my dogs were still leashed at this point) the Airedales body language changed straight away, it bowed its front legs down and its tail was wagging like crazy, after that the lady released him.
    Sometimes it does pay to listen to the owner, they know their dog... but still, it pays to be cautious, there are a lot of idiots out there.

    I let my dogs off leash and they all played happily.

    Re: Picking small dogs up.
    I always pick my Crested up. He's a 5kg weakling and fearful of other dogs.
    The only dogs I want him associating with are dogs I KNOW are friendly and not pushy so I can improve his confidence.

    If someone has other small dogs at the park I still do the same... wait and asses how they are reacting to the other dogs before putting mine down.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Default quote as asked

    Quote Originally Posted by Keira & Phoenix View Post
    I believe the member you think has removed her post is Pinkest (she has a dog named Rosie) and her post is still there it is post number 3



    I still cannot find anywhere in either topic where Bernie assumed your dog Cheyanne had done something unworthy?

    The reason we ask you to use quotes is so we know which people/posts you are referring to when you say someone has accused or insinuated something about you. As it is without quotes we do not know what you are referring to and I have looked and cannot find anything.

    In relation to the topic as I posted in the other thread I do not believe the expectations that dogs on leads should be bombproof is reasonable. I have a dog who has DA issues and if another dog ran up to her whilst she was onlead I cannot guarantee her reaction. I do take steps to make sure we are not in situations where this might happen but I am very vigilant anyways because there are always those owners who let their dogs off leash in areas they shouldn't be and have no control. I know Hyacinth(correct me if I am wrong) actually has been put in that sort of situation in the past so I am sure as per your poll you have a lot of support in this matter, even if there is some opposition.
    here is the quote I believe that got my defenses up, as I could not comprehend why I or Cheyannes behaviour warranted the dressing down. I was simply supporting others whom were fed up with off lead dogs running amok with their dogs (not in approved off leash dog parks:, just in general, suburbia, busy thoroughfares, etc).


    I think responsibility is perhaps being avoided here.
    If your dog is not under your control when approached in ANY manner by an offleash dog, then you need to repeat your training.

    Note:
    You are powerless to control the behaviour of others, you are better off
    investing energy in taking the control that is available, ie. you and your dog's behaviour.

    With training, you can shape any dog to behave under your control. He may never "like" doggy friends. But he should bloody well behave.


    Cheyanne I believe was behaving-as best as she could under the circumstances, The first bite she received was from a poodle, and she carried it in her stride, looking to me with her soft eyes as if she had actually done the wrong! Thats a German Shepherd for you. I think what happened with this thread is that some people did not peruse the whole thread which was a VENT about their dogs on their leads being harrased by dogs that were wandering around unleashed, where they were meant to be leashed, but owners were disobeying the rules. I fought for Cheyannes honour and any other dog that I did not believe ''should bloody well behave or need retraining", or be bombproof-when in fact they are being attacked! Cheyanne had another large bite to her muzzle, very difficult for me to get healed as the labrador had taken a complete chunk out, again Cheyanne wore it, but in saying that, it had an impact on her and then she was changed slightly and quite apprehensive then when dogs in the future came rambling up to her. It changed our walking relationship, was my statement basically. My argument was that she does not have to be bombproof, does not need retraining, nor correction, and was not misbehaving- and I still stand by that.
    Last edited by Dakota_Chey; 05-15-2011 at 09:52 AM. Reason: grammer

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Post reply to pinkest

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkest View Post
    The onus is on you to control your dog, whether on lead or off.

    I had a situation none too long ago where a very borderline-dog-aggressive pooch being "walked" by his owner actually pulled them over trying to get to Rosie - instead of, like when you come off a horse - you hold onto the reins - this owner let go of the leash. Big dog running us down, hackles up, on a street in the middle of the day, with the owner by now sitting on the pavement just watching {akin to car-crash TV I assume}, frozen.

    It's a bloody good thing that I am not afraid of dogs, nor am I afraid to take on a dog, so I was able to get Rosie sat and waiting for me in the seconds before this dog was upon us. Luckily it stopped about 6 feet away, hackles still up, but now becoming fear-agressive, as in "oh ****, now what do I do?". So I took a step forward, called on my inner scary-person and "ached" and "go!"'d that dog to get his attention, and another step forward and leaned over it. Not the best thing to do, goading a dog, but he had to know that I wasn't going to sumbit, so I had to call his bluff. No other choice.

    Lucky for me and Rosie, it worked, he ran back to his owner with tail wagging.

    Owner could not understand why I then proceed to tear strips off them for not being in control of the dog... "oh, he's too strong for me, I'm sorry, he's freindly, he didn't mean any harm". Bullsh!t that dog was friendly, but you're right, that dog is too strong for you because you nancy around and let him dominate you.

    So, even if a dog is on a leash, it is not necessarily under control, and had the worst happened, you bet I would have strung that owner up and taken them to court and given them a lesson in accountability they would never ever forget.

    You own a dog, you control it. Simple. As for "compromising situations" - to me, that is another way of trying to define the length of a piece of string, as Bernie has clearly outlined. Your idea of "compromised" is almost certainly not going to match the idea of "compromised" under the law. Why on earth would you risk your future, not mention your dog's, for the sake of an undefinable set of circumstances?
    another quote to follow-

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Default quote to follow

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    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.
    This quote did not come from pinkest, and the troll thing was not nice and quite aggressive, akin to trashy mouth: was what I commented on to substantiate that inflammatory posts abounded from more than one member, once again taken out of context as it was stated in the broad, general with regard to the social-networking or forum involvement. (in general)
    Last edited by Dakota_Chey; 05-15-2011 at 09:23 AM. Reason: grammer

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Arrow The support I have assures me, myself or my Cheyanne (dec) need no reprimand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkest View Post
    I suggest you back up the truck right now, and get your facts straight.

    I've never met Bernie, and I've never met you. I simply hold the opion that your are the controller of your dog, whether it is on lead or off. Taht my opinion happens to travel in the same direction as the previous poster is a matter of happenstance, not some secret societal agreement to pick on you.

    My post has NOT been deleted.

    Having jsut re-read it, I stand by it. What I wrote is factual and true, and if you don'tagree with it, that's fine, but please do not make personal accusations that I am coninuing to make inflamatory posts.

    GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT or BUGGER OFF.

    I did not start anything here, so please do NOT accuse me of doing so. I believe the poerson you should have issue with is the FullerK person who posted after me.

    If you want to label me as a TROLL, be very sure to have your facts 100% right.
    thanks, no offence intended.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota_Chey View Post
    This quote did not come from pinkest, and the troll thing was not nice and quite aggressive, akin to trashy mouth: was what I commented on to substantiate that inflammatory posts abounded from more than one member, once again taken out of context as it was stated in the broad, general with regard to the social-networking or forum involvement. (in general)
    Just FYI, the troll comment was directed at Fuller.K who has now been banned. It was not at you at all. It was in response to Fuller.K's attack on Bernie. It is still my opinion that Fuller.K was trolling (purposely making inflammatory comments in order to cause a fight/disagreement). I do not take that comment back and I still stand by what I said.

    I do believe that as handlers of canines it is OUR responsibility to control OUR own dogs. In my opinion this means not allowing your dog to approach strange dogs or people without permission under any circumstances.
    Last edited by AngelanBatty; 05-15-2011 at 01:05 PM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota_Chey View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AngelanBatty
    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.
    This quote did not come from pinkest, and the troll thing was not nice and quite aggressive, akin to trashy mouth: was what I commented on to substantiate that inflammatory posts abounded from more than one member, once again taken out of context as it was stated in the broad, general with regard to the social-networking or forum involvement. (in general)
    Dakota_Chey

    AngelanBatty called fuller.k a "troll" not you. And I agree with Angela, fuller.k's posts were deliberately inflamatory ie the work of your standard internet troll. But since you seem to claim offence at comments directed towards fuller.k - does this mean you have been posting using more than one ID?

  8. #48

    Default

    I have checked the user IP and they don't seem to be the same user

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    353

    Default

    The definition of diplomacy apparently is to think twice before saying nothing.

    So, let me preface this by saying that I have thought about this more than once, but am still choosing to say something.

    I find it odd that so many accusations of people making inflamatory remarks have been bandied about here by Dakota_Chey. With the glaring exception of Fuller.K, to my mind, most, if not all, of the other posts (including my own) actually support you Dakota_Chey, but for some reason you are blinded by your own asessment of everyone else as posting their opinions merely to aggravate you in some degree or other.

    That your dog was attacked on more than one occasion, whilst leashed and under control, is a fact that would best have been included in your original post. Yet, even after having this information, after re-reading this entire thread, I cannot find one poster who would agree that you were in the wrong.

    My own, supposedly so inflamatory, post, actually supports your argument - that your dog must be under your control. Your dog was, the other wasn't, and the results were horrible, both for you and your dog.

    I don't know what it is that is stopping you from accepting that pretty much every member of this forum is in favour of owner accountability for their dog's actions, whether on lead or off.

    AngelaBatty is spot on - a lot of dog owners shouldn't own dogs, simply because they try to impart human behaviours onto their dogs, and it generally has disastrous consequences. "Small Man Syndrome" is alive and well in certain segments of the dog owning community.

    I am also not sure that you understand where I am coming from with the last part of my post that you highlighted. In my situation, it was directed at the other dog's owner, who was not in control of her dog even when it was on a leash... and can quite easily be aimed at the owner of the dog who attacked yours - again, an owner not in control of their animal, and they should have been. This comment is aimed squarely at those who do not accept their responsibilities when it comes to their animals. When it comes to "circumstances", as I said, how do you define them when no-one except for you, was aware of exactly what those circumstances are until you outlined them in a later post? As I said, no one is going to agree on what is a "justifiable circumstance" without a complete and thourough briefing of the facts, and even then, people will still disagree.

    Everyone on this fourm has the right to express their opinions on threads - that is what they are for. If not everyone agrees with your viewpoint, it's not likely that they are picking on you, nor is it likely that they are ganging up to present a "united front"against your train of thought (even though in this case there was the very unpleasant interference from Mr Fuller.K.Troll), they are simply presenting their opinion.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Exclamation reply to thread

    I still hold, that if your dog is on a lead, and another comes up to it and harrasses it, you have a lead in your hand, you have some control. The off lead dog owner clearly has none if the dog has refused a recall.
    I would invest energy in training my dog, not other owners.

    Being able to break a dog fight up is essential, for the very reasons given, that people do just let their dogs run off lead, regardless of what jurisdiction there is.
    And a dog on the leash, is controllable. VERY.
    If you are unable to control your dog, on a leash, then repeat your training till you have the control required to not be risk to others.


    Surely. posted once again by Bernie. and for the record, I am still working out how to post quotes from previous threads, so my apologies, but feel free to track back at your leisure, until I have a handle on this.

    I would have thought it clear since you say you have re-read the threads that you would have somehow gained the introspect that Just a Vent thread beginning with Goldie was about individuals that were frustrated with dogs off their leashes, anywhere, anytime-imposing on their dogs that were on leashes and under owner control. My final statement in my very first post surely demonstrated my support of owners being over it with regard to doing the right thing and irresponsible owners of off the leash dogs whether under effective control or not, invading the space without prior consent of leashed (assuming a normal leash to dog space-in the case of my particular dog ( a short leash, under two feet to my hand and pulled in closer when the need had arisen) -in my original post, and it surely was not necessary to dribble out the entire a & b's of why I believe this should be the case as one would assume that I was supportive with a subjective hindsight of experiential observation.

    Clearly, since that first post in which I have noticed others posting similar stories, that received no pep talks from users such as bernie, or yourself. I agree to disagree, but in hindsight 'back up the truck and bugger off are replies that I have recieved for actually initially posting a point of view that clearly was in support of leashed dogs being left alone by intrusive actions of those dogs not on leads. As for collusion, the exempler to this is the fact that posts since my post have been actually written and paraphrase support to my original context and contention. Those received support-mine received judgement and pep talks. It appears that the most posts have been posted by one particular user over and above my posts, so please refrain from scapegoating, it is clear to see that posts supporting a leashed under control dog needing retraining-when others are free to approach, start a fight, jump on, knock over and so on and so forth is absolutely preponderous and in addition to being bombproof is a false sense of reality, (my unbiased opinion-and that of many professional trainers. if you care to track back in truism, you may see that there was no room for compromising situations...which incidently, many have posted stories about-just that (compromising situations that lead to certain consequences for those doing the right thing legally,.furthermore, no council in any state, that is any state would consider for one moment holding a dog or its owner responsible for a dog that was unleashed, intimidating or aggressive toward that owner or their leashed dog. The reponsibility does not lay with the leashed dogs owner to retrain as there is nothing to retrain for. Mr kfuller-whom is my alter ego-suggestive( according to another source of inflammation) has nothing to do with me, but I saw the same thing happening with that user and actually felt for them because I can read through the lines, not just the lines-and felt they also may be in jeopardy of the same issue, however their gripes were with large dogs bouldering up to their small dog.

    On that note much has been posted supporting the reasons that owners pick up little dogs whom are at jeopardy from injury and those posts have received thankyous, etc and nothing negative has been posted back to the users, nor has the user bernie received any negative feedback from the bombproof, the retraining thing, should bloody well behave itself (and to what degree under what circumstances? oh forgive my lack of intellect-anytime and everytime, even when there is a bomb in its face)-no room for loss óf face, or anything that may reflect owner has lost some control)lol. but for the exception of one post about those particular comments.

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
  •