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 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 118

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

  1. #101
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Exclamation The horse has bolted (accusations & preposterous sentences)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
    You started it. Personally I don't blame the breed for bad behaviour.


    No. I'm talking about using a rope or choke collar to strangle the dog, but like I said - not easy to do and grabbing the hind legs - maybe one person per leg - is easier and safer.
    very very unlikely. More likely people responsible did not recognise the signs.
    A Nelsons hold does not use a rope or collar- its done with two arms-cut of airway (like you suggested)My guess at trying to understand this phrase: You think I should do some research on why dogs turn for no reason. Ie no reason that a human notices or understands.

    The only reason a dog turns "for no reason" is when it has a brain tumor. There are a squillion actual reasons why a dog turns and attacks another dog or human, almost all of them have warning signs in advance. A possible exception might be when the attacking dog has been trained by an extremely stupid human not to give any warning before it attacks. Ie any time it has expressed any fear or anxiety or upset about something - ie growled, it has been scolded and / or beaten for doing so.( The only reason a dog turns "for no reason" is when it has a brain tumor. ) Wrong
    Your dog while on lead attacking another dog - does apply to you! Fair enough your dog was provoked and had a legal right in most states to defend itself (and you) but it certainly wasn't "under control" unless you gave it permission to attack or fight back. I owe whom an apology?
    why? This is an open discussion forum. You're the one making rambling disconnected accusations and preposterous sentences. You're the one asking the rest of us to do "research" and back up what we say. Why don't you do the same? A. Please provide the written evidence from any of my quotes, regarding that Cheyanne stepped a foot wrong, please-so the truth may be known, I urge you. A.I provided research from the beginningWhat is the relevance of this statement to this thread? Or even anything else you have written? I admire your support for AWL - I also support them - that's where my dog came from. But I have no idea why you added that comment in this thread.
    The AWL usually put a dog through a pretty rigid safety and behaviour analysis right? Guess where Cheyanne came from? They also look after getting the best home for their special needs dogs right? True? Could you be stating that one of their special needs dogs was unsafe, an attacker? accusations and preposterous sentences
    Ho'neene'šeohtseva'e

  2. #102
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    *sigh*
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dakota_Chey View Post


    1: A Nelsons hold does not use a rope or collar- its done with two arms-cut of airway (like you suggested)

    2: ( The only reason a dog turns "for no reason" is when it has a brain tumor. ) Wrong

    3: I owe whom an apology?

    4: A. Please provide the written evidence from any of my quotes, regarding that Cheyanne stepped a foot wrong, please-so the truth may be known, I urge you. A.I provided research from the beginning

    5: The AWL usually put a dog through a pretty rigid safety and behaviour analysis right? Guess where Cheyanne came from? They also look after getting the best home for their special needs dogs right? True? Could you be stating that one of their special needs dogs was unsafe, an attacker?
    accusations and preposterous sentences
    Ok, I've numbered these to make it very simple.

    1: You are the one that brought a "Nelson's hold" into the discussion. I don't know why, but most of what you say makes no sense anyway. Hya was explaining that that is NOT what she was referring to.

    2: It has been PROVEN time and time again that dogs who 'turn with no warning' have a mental disorder such as dementia or brain damage or they have a tumor. The vast majority of people do not see nor understand the nuances of canine behaviour.

    3: No-one wants you to apologise. No request for apology has been made, so what the hell are you asking that question for?

    4: We are NOT SAYING YOUR DOG DID ANYTHING WRONG. I don't know how many times we have to repeat ourselves... We are saying that IF your dog (THEORETICAL SITUATION ONLY NOT YOUR ACTUAL DOG) was attacked by another dog (Your dog on leash, the other dog off leash) and your dog fights back, unless you have given permission for your dog to fight it is NOT UNDER YOUR CONTROL. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT CONDEMMING YOU OR YOUR DOG IN ANY WAY. You are just making yourself look like a complete twit.

    5: I don't even know where to begin with this lot of stupidity...

    AWL do test the dogs behavior IF AN ADULT DOG prior to rehoming it. It is not a rigid test, it is not a safety test. It does not guarantee that dog in ANY way. Nor does it guarantee that dogs behavior once rehomed. The only special needs dogs I've heard of coming from the AWL have been blind, deaf or golden oldies. No-one made any statement saying they are unsafe or an attacker so how the hell did you come to that assumption?

  4. #104
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    Ok, I've numbered these to make it very simple.

    1: You are the one that brought a "Nelson's hold" into the discussion. I don't know why, but most of what you say makes no sense anyway. Hya was explaining that that is NOT what she was referring to.

    2: It has been PROVEN time and time again that dogs who 'turn with no warning' have a mental disorder such as dementia or brain damage or they have a tumor. The vast majority of people do not see nor understand the nuances of canine behaviour.

    3: No-one wants you to apologise. No request for apology has been made, so what the hell are you asking that question for?

    4: We are NOT SAYING YOUR DOG DID ANYTHING WRONG. I don't know how many times we have to repeat ourselves... We are saying that IF your dog (THEORETICAL SITUATION ONLY NOT YOUR ACTUAL DOG) was attacked by another dog (Your dog on leash, the other dog off leash) and your dog fights back, unless you have given permission for your dog to fight it is NOT UNDER YOUR CONTROL. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT CONDEMMING YOU OR YOUR DOG IN ANY WAY. You are just making yourself look like a complete twit.

    5: I don't even know where to begin with this lot of stupidity...

    AWL do test the dogs behavior IF AN ADULT DOG prior to rehoming it. It is not a rigid test, it is not a safety test. It does not guarantee that dog in ANY way. Nor does it guarantee that dogs behavior once rehomed. The only special needs dogs I've heard of coming from the AWL have been blind, deaf or golden oldies. No-one made any statement saying they are unsafe or an attacker so how the hell did you come to that assumption?
    Hyacinth spoke about the fact that my uncle should have tried to cut off the bullterriers airway to make it let go of the german shepherd in reference. This procedure is called a Nelsons hold. I stated that he did in fact use a nelsons hold but it made not any difference.

    I have been asked to apologise, and I think you need to stop answering for another individual as you cannot speak for them. It has been implied and now further stated by hyacinth, that it does apply to me. An exclamation mark that was provided next to the text, states this as my dog attacking whilst it was on lead.

    Not one of you have been able to come forth with any quotations regarding this. It should have been simple from the beginning..it was members who have complicated this issue of me supporting another user, Goldie in what she was saying and including the moderator puggerup stating it was also a pet peeve of theirs.

    There is a fine line between a bit of fun and outright accusations against a dog whom was respected by all who knew her and a poster pet for the awl. This does not make Cheyanne look favourable, and I will continue to defend her honour,.

    I am not a twit, something that you people seem to get away with as insults-double standards to say the least. I have sent this on to others who can clearly with any objectivity see what is happening here. I have also sent this on to admin and I am the one asking for an apology for Cheyanne.

    I don't care what you think or say of me, but I will not tolerate it toward my dog. I write complex, I get told, keep it simple. I write simple, I get told, you should have said such and such. Which way is it to be? Simple or contextual (that means illustrating the concept). ??????????????????????
    Ho'neene'šeohtseva'e

  5. #105
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Default

    There are many users that have posted with regard to their dogs near pulling them over, even aggression, prams, babies and dogs on leads etc etc etc-they do not have the riot act thrown at them, or hypertheticals. Why? Cheyanne acted with no aggro, which has been stated, with no anything when she was on lead being attacked. Then I get, I need to have control on her...you need to truly see this from my point. it is not yourself or your dog under attack. I am not going out of my way to play with everything any of you in any thread write. I expect the same courtesy. That is where my point came in about donating on the AJ comes to Australia thread. newbsie also donated.
    Ho'neene'šeohtseva'e

  6. #106

    Default

    I'm with Anne...

    *sigh*

    There's no point to this thread at all now.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Default Begin at the beginning

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    Ok, I've numbered these to make it very simple.

    1: You are the one that brought a "Nelson's hold" into the discussion. I don't know why, but most of what you say makes no sense anyway. Hya was explaining that that is NOT what she was referring to.

    2: It has been PROVEN time and time again that dogs who 'turn with no warning' have a mental disorder such as dementia or brain damage or they have a tumor. The vast majority of people do not see nor understand the nuances of canine behaviour.

    3: No-one wants you to apologise. No request for apology has been made, so what the hell are you asking that question for?

    4: We are NOT SAYING YOUR DOG DID ANYTHING WRONG. I don't know how many times we have to repeat ourselves... We are saying that IF your dog (THEORETICAL SITUATION ONLY NOT YOUR ACTUAL DOG) was attacked by another dog (Your dog on leash, the other dog off leash) and your dog fights back, unless you have given permission for your dog to fight it is NOT UNDER YOUR CONTROL. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT CONDEMMING YOU OR YOUR DOG IN ANY WAY. You are just making yourself look like a complete twit.

    5: I don't even know where to begin with this lot of stupidity...

    AWL do test the dogs behavior IF AN ADULT DOG prior to rehoming it. It is not a rigid test, it is not a safety test. It does not guarantee that dog in ANY way. Nor does it guarantee that dogs behavior once rehomed. The only special needs dogs I've heard of coming from the AWL have been blind, deaf or golden oldies. No-one made any statement saying they are unsafe or an attacker so how the hell did you come to that assumption?
    ANSWER. The behaviour test determines suitability for rehoming. The criteria is there to follow. Many fail it. There are no guarantees, however the AWL has a reputation to uphold and the last thing it would want is to send out a dog with aggression to its knowledge.

    ANSWER> Hyacinth>dog>AWL>support
    Ho'neene'šeohtseva'e

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    FNQ
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    This thread is so damn confusing and full of absolute crap...

    *sigh*

    Why bother.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast, Queensland
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    Ok, I've numbered these to make it very simple.

    1: You are the one that brought a "Nelson's hold" into the discussion. I don't know why, but most of what you say makes no sense anyway. Hya was explaining that that is NOT what she was referring to.

    2: It has been PROVEN time and time again that dogs who 'turn with no warning' have a mental disorder such as dementia or brain damage or they have a tumor. The vast majority of people do not see nor understand the nuances of canine behaviour.

    3: No-one wants you to apologise. No request for apology has been made, so what the hell are you asking that question for?

    4: We are NOT SAYING YOUR DOG DID ANYTHING WRONG. I don't know how many times we have to repeat ourselves... We are saying that IF your dog (THEORETICAL SITUATION ONLY NOT YOUR ACTUAL DOG) was attacked by another dog (Your dog on leash, the other dog off leash) and your dog fights back, unless you have given permission for your dog to fight it is NOT UNDER YOUR CONTROL. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT CONDEMMING YOU OR YOUR DOG IN ANY WAY. You are just making yourself look like a complete twit.

    5: I don't even know where to begin with this lot of stupidity...

    AWL do test the dogs behavior IF AN ADULT DOG prior to rehoming it. It is not a rigid test, it is not a safety test. It does not guarantee that dog in ANY way. Nor does it guarantee that dogs behavior once rehomed.
    The only special needs dogs I've heard of coming from the AWL have been blind, deaf or golden oldies. No-one made any statement saying they are unsafe or an attacker so how the hell did you come to that assumption?
    Their special needs dogs also include those whom have hereditary conditions that one needs to be aware of and provide for, those such as a neopolitan mastiff that needs extra attention to skin fold areas which is a special need, forget it. Are you questioning that my german Shepherd was not acquired with a waiver of her special need? You have said the only special needs dogs are the ones you state in your quotation. that you have 'heard of-now you know more.
    Ho'neene'šeohtseva'e

  10. #110

    Default

    OH MY doG

    NO ONE SAID YOUR DOG CHEY WAS AGGRESSIVE. FULL STOP END OF STORY.

    We used hypothetical situations to discuss the situation you are questioning ie: when is it ok for your on lead dog to react to an off leash dog. No one was saying that is how your dog reacted, they are just saying what they think is appropriate and what is not. Jeez

    You don't seem to be grasping anything anyone else is saying and you take everything personally as against you or your dog, this is not the case.

    No one is going to apologise when they know they have not been accusing your dog of anything nor have they in any way besmirched her name because no one was talking about your dog. PLEASE re-read what has been said without using your dog as context and you will see we have been supportive of what you are saying with a few differences in opinions along the way.

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
  •