dogs

[Softus]

you're the one who made the as yet indefensible claim that the entire onus is on the dog owner

Where did I make this claim?

Quite right - you didn't. I stand corrected. What's happened is that I hadn't noticed (yes, I know, I'm sorry) that scott1968 and you were different posters. Big mess caused purely by me. Sorry.

I was simply challenging the mentality that if the kids don't know how to behave around a hazard that you choose to maintain that its all their fault. Which was, or appeared to be, the indefensible claim that WAS being made. It appeared to me that the maintainers of the hazard were trying to duck responsibility, so I challenged it.

Fair play - I can see the distinction, and I apologise for taking it too far in that direction.

We then got into semantics about the use of the word "hobby", which I beleive I have established is a valid term to use. Not derogatory or demeaning, just valid.

I agree with all of that.

Any other interpretation of my posts is entirely in your own head. I'm sorry if someone challenging you causes you to make invalid interpretations of what people are saying, but thats your problem, not mine.

Reasonable comment.

And who said anything about legislation? Where did I use this word? I'm fascinated to know how you are reading things I never wrote.

Well, I sympathise, but you joined a camp, and my intepretations stem from that. I'm ready to backpedal and reset the discussion, which would take us back to this:

Why should other people require education to protect them from the risks of your hobby?

The answer lies in your own answer to my cooking example, viz:

Just because in this instance the cooking is frivolous doesn't mean the child should not be aware of the dangers of hot cookers as a class as they are another unavoidable hazzard of life.

I still maintain that dogs, as a class, are an unavoidable hazard life of life. I do think that there's a boundary, on one side of which a dog should be considered to be too unstable, but I don't agree that all other dogs should be on a lead the whole time, just in case some boys run at them waving sticks and shouting, and I don't agree with the utterly stupid statement that you appeared to defend, being that it's acceptable to use those sticks upon the dog.

 

[Softus]

Anyone see a trend developing?

Our posts have crossed - please see my explanation of my own confusion.

 

[Softus]

Softus you said,

‘Cos you don't seem to know much about them (dogs)’

Yes I did.

What makes you say I ‘don't seem to know much about them’?

Specifically, this question that you asked:
How many times have you heard dog owners (dog not on lead) say they are okay they wont bit you (these dog owners are either unreasonable, selfish or just completely dumb).

My statement has nothing to do with owning a dog, living with a dog or never owning a dog.

It depends which statement you're referring to, but I'm likely to disagree.

It’s about dog owners that have no respect for others ‘They are unreasonable, selfish or just completely dumb’ this seems to apply to most dog owners I have meet.

I see. I'm still not clear, at this point, whether or not you are, or have ever been, a dog owner.

And for the record there is a black lab in my house (answered you question).

Is that like a photographic darkroom of some kind?

Can you answer my question what make you think- ‘I don't seem to know much about them (dogs)’? not twisted any of your words

Please see above, so that I don't have to answer this question twice.

And I'm still not clear, at this point, whether or not you are, or have ever been, a dog owner...

 

[scott1968]

How many times have you heard an unreasonable, selfish or just completely dumb dog owners say they are okay they wont bit you?

All dogs bit!
Some people are scared from dogs!
A dog can knock you down (especially a young child)!


I’m responsible for my dog (Black Labrador), I would like to say 100% responsible for the actions of my dog but there could be the odd occasion that this may not be possible.
In general speaking I’m responsible for my dog 100% especially when there are young children around.


Dog owners should take more responsibility but most don’t

 

[baldy01]

I think we can agree that animal as a class are an unavoidable part of our environment and if said animals are large and have big pointy teeth then they should be treated with caution and children should be taught to act appropriately.

Can we also agree that just saying "well its an animal, what do you expect?" does not absolve the owner of the responsibility of being duly cautious about when and where their dog is allowed to mingle with joe public?

This stems from recent experience as my mother-in-law was bitten by a dog that is allowed to roam free by its owner, regardless of the fact that it has bitten someone before.

And yes she is a dog owner and a dog lover (not the same) and has been so for 50 odd years and if anyone accused her of behaving inappropriately towards a dog I would have to give them a funny look.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think we can agree that animal as a class are an unavoidable part of our environment

The class of pet or non-working dogs (not counting retired working dogs) is completely avoidable.

So we could at a stroke remove all of these animals from society over a period of 15-odd years by banning the ownership of dogs other than working ones (your "4. errm" item should include sheepdogs, amongst others).

But that would be a hugely repressive measure, out of all proportion to the risk that exists, or that would exist with properly managed dogs.

The dog owners here are all claiming that they are responsible, and manage their dogs properly, and that it's other dog owners who are the problem. I'm sure they also claim that they always clean up after their dogs, and I have no reason to doubt them on that either, but that doesn't alter the fact the pavements are covered in dog faeces, any more than their responsible behaviour alters the fact that children are killed and mothers-in-law are bitten by dogs.

So I'd like to ask the dog owners here what they think should be done, if anything?

I accept that there are no reliable figures for attacks, but it's safe to say that there can only be more than the ones we hear about, so do the dog owners here think that the numbers of deaths and injuries are acceptably low?

Do they think that there is a case for banning the ownership, as non-working dogs, of certain breeds?

 

[kevplumb]

mothers-in-law are bitten by dogs.

hope the dog had a tetanus jab

 

[scott1968]

My dog is a working dog do you want my opinion or are you after the opinion of dog owners that have dogs for pets?

 

[baldy01]

Please chip in, the more the merrier.......

 

[ban-all-sheds]

My dog is a working dog do you want my opinion or are you after the opinion of dog owners that have dogs for pets?

No - yours too.

 

[scott1968]

You may find most dog owners will hide from this.


A few for starters

You have to be a registered dog owner and pay a yearly license (£50 -£100)

You have to be responsible for your dog’s actions (license owner)

Hefty fines for not cleaning up after your dog

Hefty fine for not controlling (and not on lead) your dog designated areas

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sounds good.

Reduction in licence fee for pensioners, benefit claimants etc?

 

[scott1968]

Sounds good.

Reduction in licence fee for pensioners, benefit claimants etc?

No (just my opinion)

 

[Softus]

You have to be a registered dog owner and pay a yearly license (£50 -£100)

Unworkable - IMO not enough people would vote for this, given the cost of administration and policing.

You have to be responsible for your dog’s actions (license owner)

That doesn't represent a change.

Hefty fines for not cleaning up after your dog

Also unworkable - do you foresee Pooping Wardens patrolling all streets and parks?

Hefty fine for not controlling (and not on lead) your dog designated areas

Ditto. Although I'm certainly in favour of heftier fines for those whose dog is unequivocally the unprovoked attacker.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Sounds good.

Reduction in licence fee for pensioners, benefit claimants etc?

No (just my opinion)

A bit hard on the lonely old widow/widower who only has a dog for company most of the time, and a bit hard on the kids in poor families who will now miss out on yet more things that normal families take for granted.

And how would it be introduced? Would it be for all new dog purchases after a certain date, or would it be that all existing dog owners have to apply?

What would the charge pay for? What benefit does a responsible dog-owner, who may have had dogs continuously for decades with never any problems, get in return for his £50 - £100?