# Alaskan Malamute savaged Jack Russell



## cabot (Jul 2, 2011)

An elderly friend of mine was out walking his dog when it was savaged to death by an Alaskan Malamute dog. The owner was apologetic, but the distraught elderly man had to carry the body of his beloved pet home covered in blood. What rights does he have as only by chance we have found out that the malamute owner happens to stay no more than 300m away. Police were called but took no action as it was discovered that the malamute was on a lead and the Jack Russell was not. The incident happened in a nearby park.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

How very sad for the owner of the Jack Russell.

If the Malamute was on a lead and the Jack Russell went to it, then really, the Mal was under control and the JR not, so I believe there is nothing to be done.

Sadly, allowing your dog to approach onlead dogs can be very risky.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

Oh how very sad 
I have absolutely no idea about legal recourses or otherwise. 

Legalities aside, it’s hard to say still. If the malamute is generally aggressive and prone to this sort of behavior I would say he needs to be muzzled at the very least, though a muzzled dog intent on doing damage can definitely still do so.

However, it’s also possible that he gave a fair or maybe slightly OTT correction for rude behavior on the part of the JRT, and it just ended up being one of those unfortunate bites that just happens to hit the wrong spot and cause irreparable damage. Ideally all dogs would have adequate bite inhibition and self control, but not all do, and for all we know, the malamute was attacked by the JRT and responded with more force than he should have. 

I feel awful for the owner of the JRT, such a horrible way to learn not to let your dog run up to other dogs, but I also feel bad for the malamute owner, if they are any type of compassionate person I’m sure they feel horrible about this too. Just awful all around


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Like the others who have replied, I agree that ultimately the JRT owner was responsible for keeping his dog away from the other. Awful as it is, the malamute may have been a dog that didn't like others rushing up to it, and responded when the JRT approached. Sadly the size disparity between the dogs was what probably accounted for the death of the smaller dog - mals are very powerful and all it could take would be a single bite and perhaps a shake and all would be over.

My heart aches for the owner of the jack russell - he must be distraught, and I can't imagine how dreadful the whole thing must have been. Unfortunately a lot of owners of small dogs think that it is okay for their dog to pester larger ones (not saying that this is what happened in this particular case - only that it is annoyingly common), and this awful incident is a terrible demonstration of what can happen.

Terrible for everyone concerned, but I don't think that the JRT owner has any comeback. What was he hoping for? At best, the Malamute owner would be asked to muzzle his dog. The police will have noted the incident and if there is any further aggression reported by that particular dog then this incident will go against it. Dog on dog incidents are not regarded in the same way as dog-human incidents. I would think that the police have had an unofficial word with the malamute owner even though there is no action that can be taken. I would think that the mal owner is also very shaken by the incident.

If the JRT owner was hoping to get his dog replaced, I don't think he would get anywhere.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2015)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


Owners of ALL breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control.

That said, sometimes $hit happens.

I was out jogging at dawn with my dog (large dog by any standards). He was totally under control, on a leash, trotting along next to me. As we passed a clump of grass, he stuck his head in it, came out shaking his head, and the skunk was dead before I could even comprehend what had just happened, let alone utter a "leave it" or "drop" cue. Once I did say drop, he did, no problem, but he killed that skunk just that quickly. He never even broke stride.

Most dogs (mine included) don't view other dogs as prey, no matter how small, but predatory drift is a real thing, and some dogs are very efficient predators.

But like I said, it could also have been a very unlucky bite, the JRT could have been elderly and/or had some pre-existing condition, known or unknown that made a run-of-the mill bite fatal to him.

There are really too many unknowns to say one way or another.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


Owners of ALL breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times, not just owners of powerful breeds.

We don't know the full facts here, but if the Jack ran up to the onlead Mal and a fight ensued, there was only going to be one winner.

And no, with such a difference in size of the two dogs concerned, it wouldn't have to have been going on for a while.


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Dog laws are slightly different in Scotland to the rest of the UK, and your use of the word "stay" makes me wonder if you might be in Scotland?

It might be worth reporting this to the police.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


I speak as someone who had a staffie which hated other dogs running up to her, especially if they were barking - a gentle approach and she was fine, but a lunge - nonononono!

And believe me, when another dog dives on yours unexpectedly, things happen so fast that sometimes you don't get the chance to stop anything. A dog on a leash IS under control (as long as it isn't a flexi). Why should the owners of powerful dogs be responsible if small dog owners don't control their animals? Why, for instance, should I be expected to muzzle my dog and leave her unable to defend herself if she was attacked? The reason that she was so reactive in the first place was because when she was out for a walk, TWO fox terriers attacked her, lunging front and back. Previously on the same walk she had been attacked by a labrador and by a border terrier. She was seven months old - a puppy - and it left her badly frightened. For all we know, something similar had happened to this malamute.

And it takes only a moment for a large dog to kill or badly injure a smaller one - it isn't a matter of repeated biting and shaking - a single snap in the right (or wrong) place, and it is all over in a heartbeat - it really can be that fast. I'm not saying that this makes it okay - of course it doesn't - but owners of small dogs are just as responsible for their dogs' behaviour as owners of large ones. There are a lot of little dogs which repeatedly get away with behaviour that would get a large dog euthanised after the first incident. It isn't fair or right that small dogs have a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to aggression, just because of their size.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

I would add that if a dog insists on fighting (as this JRT may have done, because I imagine that the malamute owner held his/her dog on as short a leash as possible when this happened) - anyway, if a dog insists on being aggressive they are difficult to catch and bring under control. I expect that the JRT owner was shouting for and grabbing at his dog, but the daft little thing was over-excited and possibly also thought that the bigger dog couldn't do anything with being on lead. I've seen this happen on more than one occasion on walks, where an owner of a large dog is forced to have their dog almost off the ground to stop them responding to smaller aggressive dogs (and as it happens, JRTs are very frequently aggressors - terriers are, by nature, scrappers - and often have owners who think their dog is brilliant because it is prepared to take anything on). Sadly, some cases are bound to end like this one. 

I don't think the malamute owner will be happy about this either. I had two bull terriers which killed a cat and it knocked me sick for months - even now it upsets me to think of it and it was thirty years ago. Something like this is dreadful for everybody concerned.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? *Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control* at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


Excuse me? I know of several people who continually allow their 'uncontrolled not so large and powerful breed dogs' to run riot around Zara & Oscar and think it's amusing because our under control and leashed large and powerful breed dogs just stand and puzzle at the fuss and nuisance they make of themselves.
Why do I seem to get the impression that, for some, it always seems to be the BIG dogs that pose the problems and not the small ones?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

All dogs should be under control, not just those large and powerful ones. And serious injury or death can occur without a fight lasting long. Rupert, while muzzled and leashed, broke the ribs of a JRT type dog that got past me. There was no fight at all, the dog reached him, he smashed it to the ground instantly. I'd been surrounded by the JRT and 4 other dogs with no owners in sight in the street, wasn't my dog who was out of control.

I do think if a dog has shown it's likely to cause serious injury then it should be muzzled in public because with the best will in the world accidents do happen. But if this Malamute was on leash and the JRT wasn't then I'm guessing the JRT approached the Mal rather than the other way round. If so then I feel for both owners. Awful way to learn not to let your dog approach others. And it's just as awful for a responsible owner to have their dog seriously injure or kill another because of someone elses lack of control.

As for rights, I was told when I enquired that it's a very grey area when it comes to incidents like this. But if you do live in Scotland then the law may well be different.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


Are you aware how fast dogs react? He had his dog in a lead one warning snap catching the dog wrong could kill it?

The Mal was under control the JRT wasn't!

Awful all round


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Devastating for the owner  

However as an owner of a JRT - they can be feisty little things .... Think small man syndrome so without knowing exactly what happened it's hard for anyone to speculate.


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


In this situation it sounds as if the Malamute was under control but the JRT was not.

This is the reason I keep Taz separate from my sibes when we go out, while I am fairly certain they would not purposely eat / savage him I am worried about them being OTT with him and accidentally hurting / killing him as one wrong paw / snack could mean no more Taz


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


Being on a lead is under control. Not being on a lead is not under control; ergo the JRT was not under control and the Malamute was.

As others have said why is it big dogs that need extra care? We should all be thinking of the safety of our dogs regardless of size. I have two large and powerful dogs, one can be iffy with other dogs so is leashed around others. Doesn't stop other dogs coming up to her out of control and while she has never actually hurt a dog I shouldn't be at fault if a dog comes up to her out of control while I do my best to have her under control. People should think seriously about training their dogs and taking responsibility regardless of size. Yes mistakes happen, but very rarely if you have your wits about you. Kes is often off lead despite being iffy with others (all noise and slobber but it looks awful), and I am extremely alert and careful about when an if she is off lead so no accidents happen.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

You keep saying the Mal was 'under control'...killing another dog is not what I call 'under control'! 

I agree the JRT wasn't under control and the old person shouldn't have had it off-lead if it didn't have a good recall, but what if it had been a small child that had run up the dog and tried to hug it and the dog bit the child cos it grabbed it? You know the dog is going to get the blame even if its the child that caused the reaction. 

In the same way if you take on a large powerful breed, you surely know before taking it on that most of public are going to blame the bigger dog that can do more damage even if the small dog was the one out of control.

JJ always used to get attacked by this little min pin at nature park the owners never had it on lead and always laughed and offered the explanation that he didn't like puppies and was 'a character'. I just stopped going at the same time they were there. JJ doesn't like small breeds that rush at him yapping now and he started barking at them before they started on him, but as a bigger dog that makes him look like the 'bad dog' lunging at the little cute dogs with their elderly owners! ..so he had to learn to 'ignore' and carry on walking. He does sometimes get a bark in first if I'm not one step ahead of him, but I say 'ah' and stop scooter and make him sit and ignore and we don't move until he does. he soon learnt we can move past them quicker if he just ignores them to start with! I know why he doesn't like them and its a result of small dogs rushing at him that caused his reaction but the public looking on who don't know that will only see that he's bigger than them and should be under better control. 

Teaching a 'be gentle' command too for bigger dogs being approached by smaller dogs or kids is useful and teaching them to control their impulses. (for JJ not to nip or herd small kids or dogs moving quickly past him). 

I do agree though its unfair that owners of small dogs often don't expect their dogs to behave as well, knowing they will 'get away with it' due to their size and wouldn't be seen as a threat.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

My last rottie was on a lead and muzzled in places where other dogs/people were about. She was frequently charged by other off lead dogs and on a couple of occasions we had an off lead JRT come from some distance away to have a go at her - like hanging off her throat snarling. She couldn't defend herself as she was muzzled and the JRT's elderly owner just shouted let them sort it out themselves. Right so I take the muzzle off and your dog gets killed, wonder who would get the blame for that. Despite asking him repeatedly to control his dog he wouldn't/couldn't so rather than risk my dog getting injured we walked elsewhere.


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

Gentle to a large breed is not the same as gentle to a small breed of dog , I have witnessed Skyla lovingly nudge Taz with her nose only to push him off the edge of the sofa accidentally which in his case due to his size could have resulted in a broken leg / spine / neck. 

The point people are making is if this JRT was being a pain in the arse to the Mal and the Mal decided to "correct" it , the correction it gave may have killed the JRT but wouldn't have killed another Malamute.

At the end of the day if you are walking your dog on lead, you do not want someone elses out of control dog jumping in their face. There is probably a very good reason why the Malamute was on lead in the first place.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> You keep saying the Mal was 'under control'...killing another dog is not what I call 'under control'!
> 
> I agree the JRT wasn't under control and the old person shouldn't have had it off-lead if it didn't have a good recall, but what if it had been a small child that had run up the dog and tried to hug it and the dog bit the child cos it grabbed it? You know the dog is going to get the blame even if its the child that caused the reaction.


I want to point out here that a dog on dog attack does not equal dog on human attack.

The Malamute in this situation was under control, for all we know of the situation (and its very little) the little dog may have come running over to the larger dog and started to attack it, and the larger dog reacted in defence having never attacked or shown aggression.

If you think the Malamute was not under control, how do you think the owner should have controlled it? Muzzled? Remove the Teeth? ...

Sorry to say this Inca but I think you are looking at this far too naively.

Its sad all round really not only for the little dog that lost its life, but also for the owner of the Husky.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> You keep saying the Mal was 'under control'...killing another dog is not what I call 'under control'!
> 
> I agree the JRT wasn't under control and the old person shouldn't have had it off-lead if it didn't have a good recall, but what if it had been a small child that had run up the dog and tried to hug it and the dog bit the child cos it grabbed it? You know the dog is going to get the blame even if its the child that caused the reaction.
> 
> ...


Seriously what would you like people with large breeds to do? Keep them inside?

If a small dog attacks ( not saying it was the case in this situation) a large on lead dog do you then think the larger dog should just stand there and accept it?

I really can't believe you have just used the " what if it was a child " I tend to ignore your post because they astound me that someone who has been on this forum so long is so clueless and ignorant!


----------



## Rosie64 (Feb 27, 2014)

As the owner of a small dog with less than perfect recall and now less than perfect temperament around others I do not let him off lead unless I know that there is no chance of any others being around solely because I do not want him ending up like the poor JRT in the OP but the amount of people that let their small dogs come running up to him although I warn them he is unpredictable is unbeleivable all I get is oh they will be ok they are both only little so I do agree that a lot of owners of small dogs seem to think it is ok JUST because their dogs are small


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Maybe we should all wait/expect facts/evidence of this attack before commenting, as is the case in other attack stories. If true then obviously this is horrible, but I thought a small percentage of our members didn't like making assumptions on posts without facts.....just sayin'.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> You keep saying the Mal was 'under control'...killing another dog is not what I call 'under control'!
> 
> I agree the JRT wasn't under control and the old person shouldn't have had it off-lead if it didn't have a good recall, but what if it had been a small child that had run up the dog and tried to hug it and the dog bit the child cos it grabbed it? You know the dog is going to get the blame even if its the child that caused the reaction.
> 
> ...


I don't think you're really appreciating how quickly a situation can cause a dog on a lead to be 'out of control'.

The first time Brock was in a fight, he was 9ish months old and on lead (at this point he had no behavioural issues and had shown no signs of aggression in any situation, he was on lead because we were on a pavement).

A patterdale rushed up to him and started biting him anywhere it could reach, after what seemed like a fairly long time, Brock decided he'd had enough and tried to retaliate. (I don't really blame him, he was left with cuts afterward).

Being a puppy and never having done it before he wasn't very effective, but I do remember holding his head down to try and stop him because all I could think was, I've seen him bite straight through a lamb rib, if he connects one real bite on that dog, he'll kill it.

That's all it would take in that sort of situation, one hard bite...


----------



## Canine K9 (Feb 22, 2013)

Devastating all around


IncaThePup said:


> You keep saying the Mal was 'under control'...killing another dog is not what I call 'under control'!
> 
> I agree the JRT wasn't under control and the old person shouldn't have had it off-lead if it didn't have a good recall, *but what if it had been a small child that had run up the dog and tried to hug it and the dog bit the child cos it grabbed it?* You know the dog is going to get the blame even if its the child that caused the reaction.
> 
> ...


Can I just say
About the first bolded part- Dog aggression is not the same as human aggression. It annoys me when people say "could be a child next" about a dog injuring/killing another dog. I know plenty of DA dogs who are perfectly friendly with people.
About the second bolded part- All owners need to be aware of their dogs behaviour no matter size/breed/sex/age/whatever
About the third bolded part- My dog is small and he isn`t allowed to behave recklessly. It`s why his recall is still a work in progress, I am careful about offlead time etc. I don`t think he will `get away' with anything. The majority of dogs that are problems on our walks are large breeds whose owners let them `get away' with bad behaviour


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2015)

stuaz said:


> I want to point out here that a dog on dog attack does not equal dog on human attack.


Yeah, this. We really need to quit with the "it could have been a child" nonsense. My dogs are both quick to kill small furries, but they are bombproof with children. They can tell the difference not only between a rabbit and a dog, but a dog and a child. As can pretty much all dogs.

It may well have been that the malamute's behavior was OTT dog aggression and that even on leash, the malamute was not under control - that can happen. A dog who drags his/her owner 50 feet to go attack another dog is not under control even if leashed.

However, in this situation, we flat don't know. We don't know if the JRT was the one out of control, if the Malamute was, if they both were, if neither was and it was just a freak accident - that can happen too. I agree we should not be speculating.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Seriously what would you like people with large breeds to do? Keep them inside?
> 
> If a small dog attacks ( not saying it was the case in this situation) a large on lead dog do you then think the larger dog should just stand there and accept it?
> 
> I really can't believe you have just used the " what if it was a child " I tend to ignore your post because they astound me that someone who has been on this forum so long is so clueless and ignorant!


I can only speak from experience with my dog. JJ reacts to* ANYTHING *flashing past him fast whether its a cat or a child flying down the inside of him (on the pavement) on a scooter/skateboard. He's also more reactive of a the sound of dog flying at him from behind a fence (on his left) than seeing a dog barking at him, he's less reactive when its on his right side for some reason.

Now I don't know whether that's cos he can't see as well on that side and just 'sees' a flash of movement and reacts before he's registered what it is or if he can't see on that side so is just reacting to the sound cos he thinks a dog is rushing at him. If I stop and he stops and relaises there's a wall/gate between him and the other dog he stops (he's usually turned to face it by then), but he passed an eye test the other year and I was told there was nothing wrong with his sight.

I had problems last summer when neighbours grandkids were running about squealing in the summer as for some reason the HA has made the fence between mine and the neighbours lower in the middle so when the kids were on their swings (which they'd put right over by the low fence) it looked to JJ like something was flying back and forth over the top of the fence (and its a slatted fence so he could see bits of movement through the fence too) and he'd charge the fence barking so I had to bring him in cos the youngest would run in the house crying to the grandparents. NOW I know had the child approached us calmly and asked to stroke him he will happily sit there and let them as he's done so several times whilst out and will happily play ball with them, but when they're flying past him quick he just doesn't seem to register what it is.

We've passed several stationary cats he hasn't appeared to see, even walking but very slowly right on his side and past the same dog in the street that goes mental from behind the wall at the end of the estate, he doesn't react to the dog outside,(not sure if its cos he doesn't relaise its the same dog or not) only when we go past that particular point and its barking from behind the wall, so I'm not sure whether its collie/movement 'sensitivity' thing from his herding instincts or because he doesn't have full sight (particuarly on that left side) and is just reacting to anything flashing past him fast or that sounds like its running at him. I've experimented with little tests moving things past him at different speeds and it has to be above a certain speed to trigger the chase reaction, which maybe why he doesn't react to a cat right on his left side unless its moving faster than a certain speed? Neither has he any interest in a child that walks or even rides slowly past on a bike.

I assumed all breeds with a strong prey/chase drive would have similar issues? (and that Huskies/Mals are within that group of dogs with a high prey drive) if you're saying they don't and can quickly distinguish *WHAT* it is that's flying past them in the heat of the moment and react accordingly, then I clearly need to get JJ's sight retested as the vet has missed something when they last tested him! (or problems have developed since).


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Seriously what would you like people with large breeds to do? Keep them inside?


_*Yeah right! I wonder when people are going to realise instances such as the OP submitted are a 'dog thing'. Size is not actually relevant. The unfortunate scuffle Oscar became involved in, but did not start, was with a smaller dog. (Of course it had to be  ) Breed was never mentioned and I chose not to mention the breed because I considered it was a dog and owner issue and so the breed was not relevant either.*_

_*However, when Zara was attacked I inadvertently named the breed of dogs that attacked her and then realised soon after that my decision to do that was an error of judgemnet because I felt as though it may have appeared I was trying to discredit a breed. I was not and that was my mistake.
Both Zara & Oscar have had surgical procedures as a direct result of other dogs aggression's and although some find the need to label Zara & Oscar as 'Dangerous' and 'Unpredictable' they were not the instigators of the problem.*_

_*If we can just stop demonizing BIG dogs and their particular breeds that would be great.*_


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> My last rottie was on a lead and muzzled in places where other dogs/people were about. She was frequently charged by other off lead dogs and on a couple of occasions we had an off lead JRT come from some distance away to have a go at her - like hanging off her throat snarling. She couldn't defend herself as she was muzzled and the JRT's elderly owner just shouted let them sort it out themselves. Right so I take the muzzle off and your dog gets killed, wonder who would get the blame for that. Despite asking him repeatedly to control his dog he wouldn't/couldn't so rather than risk my dog getting injured we walked elsewhere.


Something similar happened with Grace - again a JRT, which lunged at her (she was on leash) and grabbed her lip and wouldn't let go - she eventually shook him off, tearing her lip in the process, and I did warn the owner that if he didn't get hold of his b8st8rd dog I would kick the little bugger to death (and at the time I meant it). I said that if a fight started I would let go of the lead - he got hold of his then fast enough, and I got the usual "staffies are vicious" crap.

What people who allow their nasty little dogs to do this sort of thing don't even think of, is that every time it happens it makes the dog under attack more reactive - not just for the week or so that the adrenaline from the incident is running through his/her system, but in general, especially if they have been hurt in any way. They then see a small dog rushing about wildly, yapping like buggery and they are immediately on the alert - and yes, the owner is also on the alert, but that doesn't mean that something definitely won't happen - and even if the other dog doesn't get near, that memory of previous attacks is strengthened. (And it also makes their little dog, which has enjoyed a massive adrenaline rush from making what is in their own eyes a "successful" attack and "defeated" a much larger dog, more likely to do it again - and again - and again - and one day maybe that dog will become another statistic killed by a larger dog which "should have been under control".)

I would also imagine that if the larger dog has a strong prey drive to begin with it will be honed and sharpened by these abortive attacks. One person's aggressive little dog could cause the death of an entirely unrelated one because it awakens a prey drive that could have lain dormant.

I do, however, get peed off when people play the "if this had been a child" card.

1) A dog which fights with other dogs will not automatically attack a child.

2) If your child rushes up to a strange dog and startles it, that is YOUR fault - not the dog's or the child's.

3) If your child is too young to understand that s/he shouldn't grab or otherwise torment strange dogs, then YOU should have a firm hold of your infant.

And remember - every dog is involved in an incident for the FIRST time - maybe this was the malamute's first time and the owner had no idea what might happen. I know it is horrible throwing blame at this man when his dog has been killed, but when push comes to shove, if he had had his dog under control then this would not have happened - the mal didn't pull free and attack, the mall's owner didn't set his dog on the JRT - the terrier approached an on-leash dog in such a way as to provoke a response which ended in its death. Horrible, but if there is any blame at all (and I'm not saying there is, as we don't know what prompted the JRT's behaviour) then it is squarely on the shoulders of the person who had a dog with poor recall and yet let it off-leash in a place where it was likely to encounter other dogs.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

lostbear said:


> If your child rushes up to a strange dog and startles it, that is YOUR fault - not the dog's or the child's.


Aye! Maybe the owner of the child should be a little more attentive and keep the little blighter on a leash at all times.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

cabot said:


> An elderly friend of mine was out walking his dog when it was savaged to death by an Alaskan Malamute dog. The owner was apologetic, but the distraught elderly man had to carry the body of his beloved pet home covered in blood. What rights does he have as only by chance we have found out that the malamute owner happens to stay no more than 300m away. Police were called but took no action as it was discovered that the malamute was on a lead and the Jack Russell was not. The incident happened in a nearby park.


Being on a lead does not necessarily equate to "being under control" in all contexts, there is case law for this. Savaged to death is a very emotive term and unecessarily perjorative.

Under the new annexes to the DDA it is possible for a CPN Community Protection Notice or PSPO Public Spaces Protection Order to be issued against the owner if, the facts warrant it.

If there is a dog warden in your area it might be worth speaking to them.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Being on a lead is under control. Not being on a lead is not under control; ergo the JRT was not under control and the Malamute was.


This is what many people believe. But according to the dog law experts when I contacted them to ask, you can still be found liable even if your dog is on leash and the other dog isn't. Especially if your dog has a history of aggression. They told me it's a very grey area but that your dog being on leash does not absolve you of all responsibility in an incident.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

I am fortunate to live opposite a large common and also have a big playing field directly behind the house. My dog (only one these days as the eldest no longer goes outside) is always on a lead (for reasons which aren't relevant here). Now, as a standard poodle I accept that she is not from a breed which tends to make people anxious, but on every single walk at least one dog will suddenly rush up to her. Often there are three or four at a time, either because a couple of owners walk together or because a lot of people round here have several dogs. Fortunately Quinta is the type of girl who, if I put a live rabbit in her mouth, would just gently put it down on the ground and look puzzled! But the owners don't know this (it's a holiday area so I have lots of 'one-off' meetings), and she is a big dog. I've tried saying something, but they all say a variation of, "Don't worry; he's alright." 

I'm hoping that my next dog will be a rescue staffie but, quite honestly, I think I will always keep it on the lead - it can exercise in the garden. Let's face it, with a staffie, anything that happens will always be MY fault :Banghead.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> I assumed all breeds with a strong prey/chase drive would have similar issues? (and that Huskies/Mals are within that group of dogs with a high prey drive) if you're saying they don't and can quickly distinguish *WHAT* it is that's flying past them in the heat of the moment and react accordingly, then I clearly need to get JJ's sight retested as the vet has missed something when they last tested him! (or problems have developed since).


You have a herding dog bred to chase things that move...there is zero wrong with JJ's eyes (as the vet has already told you). All you are describing is a normal drivey collie lol
Whilst all prey drive is part pf the predatory sequence, different breeds will exhibit different traits...Collies bred to herd so are more likely to chase movement (even shadows) and mall's have a strong hunting drive so react completely differently to a collie.

You are a very judgmental person (well you certainly come across as one here)..we know zero about this case and you have already made your judgement on who was at fault


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> I can only speak from experience with my dog. JJ reacts to* ANYTHING *flashing past him fast whether its a cat or a child flying down the inside of him (on the pavement) on a scooter/skateboard. He's also more reactive of a the sound of dog flying at him from behind a fence (on his left) than seeing a dog barking at him, he's less reactive when its on his right side for some reason.
> 
> Now I don't know whether that's cos he can't see as well on that side and just 'sees' a flash of movement and reacts before he's registered what it is or if he can't see on that side so is just reacting to the sound cos he thinks a dog is rushing at him. If I stop and he stops and relaises there's a wall/gate between him and the other dog he stops (he's usually turned to face it by then), but he passed an eye test the other year and I was told there was nothing wrong with his sight.
> 
> ...


Not the same breed, but Brock has a pretty high prey/chase drive...but his want to chase that thing impulse isn't the same as his want to bite that one.

Obviously Brock is complicated because of his DA...but his chase instinct responds fine to training.

If a cat, a rabbit or a child on a scooter suddenly race past him he either turns to me (it took lots of work right enough) or very occasionally still I get a bit of a bounce towards it and a whine, but he's responsive to commands.

If it's a dog, he'll just lunge and he's way too stressed to respond to anything.

Like I said, he's complicated so most dogs aren't behaving like that but my point is that he differentiates between them in a tiny fragment of a second.

If your dog doesn't I'd suggest it's a bog standard impulse control issue tbh.


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

lostbear said:


> 2) If your child rushes up to a strange dog and startles it, that is YOUR fault - not the dog's or the child's.
> 
> 3) If your child is too young to understand that s/he shouldn't grab or otherwise torment strange dogs, then YOU should have a firm hold of your infant.


Believe it or not I called into town yesterday after taking Skyla to the vets, as it was hot and the thing I wanted was outside on the market I took her with me. I was facing the shop, Skyla on lead at my feet but facing the other way and she started "wooo wooo wooooing" I turned around to see a little girl stroking her!!! Her Dad was squatting down with his camera out to take a picture!! She was 2/3 years old at most.

Now Skyla LOVES children , she LOVES them a little too much and quite willingly jumps up at them and can knock them over. So I crouch down next to the little girl and grab Skyla's collar while reminding the Dad he should not let his daughter walk up to strange dogs because the next one might not be so friendly.

I was walking back to the car and just thinking how that could have been a totally different situation if Skyla was human aggressive or just plain didn't like kids.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> You have a herding dog bred to chase things that move...there is zero wrong with JJ's eyes (as the vet has already told you). All you are describing is a normal drivey collie lol
> Whilst all prey drive is part pf the predatory sequence, different breeds will exhibit different traits...Collies bred to herd so are more likely to chase movement (even shadows) and mall's have a strong hunting drive so react completely differently to a collie.
> 
> You are a very judgmental person (well you certainly come across as one here)..we know zero about this case and you have already made your judgement on who was at fault


Similarly you have never met my dogs but are convinced there is nothing wrong with my dogs sight without ever having met him! 

Interestingly he's NEVER chased shadows, though he'll chase anything zooming through his field of vision. ..except bubbles! (when neighbours kids have been playing with bubble machines and they've blown over into our garden)..unless he's sat right in front of you or the machine and knows bubbles are coming. Obviously its all to do with his prey drive that he can't find a stationary ball (that he's stood right next to) without directions but can track a moving one when he knows you're throwing it for him? ...I find that a little odd but maybe I just need to do more research on the collie prey drive.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

From my last experience with the Police when my dog was attacked by three off lead dogs on the public highway, clearly marked dogs must be on a lead and in my opinion his dogs were out of control. Their answer then was dogs fight that's what they do. It would have been different if the dogs had have attacked me. It made no difference to the Police that my dog was on a lead and these three were off lead in an area clearly marked that dogs are to be kept on a lead.

imo Unfortunately the fact that the dog who was attacked was off lead, the onus then lies with its owners. I learned quite quickly owning Duke that not all dogs are well socialised and happy to be around other dogs. Some dogs on leads can be more reactive towards other dogs than if they were off lead. I have found various reasons for this. I. the dog is protecting its owner. 2. the dog is reacting to its owners reactions (ie owner tenses sending out distress signals (so to speak) as a strange dog comes towards them. 3. The dog is reacting naturally but doesn't have the option of flight (to get away from the situation) so opts for the fight situation, this tends to be more so with nervous/shy dogs. Then of course there are the dogs that will not tolerate other dogs period.

My rule of thumb is that if my dog doesn't have solid recall then he stays on the lead, I use a flexi lead. The only time he is allowed off the lead is when we meet up with another dog and both are happy to be around each other. Duke will stay close with his new friend and has solid recall. If I take him off the lead and a dog enters the field he will charge off to meet the other dog and this is where he can run into trouble.

My dog is a Staffie and whilst it saddens me to say this - its true, if my dog attacks another dog, he would be ceased under the DDA. At the time he was attacked by three dogs I was asked their breed. These dogs albeit large dogs were of no specific breed and I was told that as they are not on the banned breed list even by type there was nothing they could do - which choked me because the owner had breached/broken the law as his were off lead. Seems to me the DDA in practise only works if the dogs are deemed to be of a banned breed or banned breed type.

If the dog that was attacked was on lead, I would have suggested informing the Dog Warden, but because imo the owner of the dog on the lead was being a responsible owner, the dog was attacked because it approached an on lead dog then I believe as harsh as it seems that this should be put down to experience. The owner of the dog that attacked I would think will also be having sleepless nights too. No true dog lover wishes harm to any dog.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

IncaThePup said:


> I can only speak from experience with my dog. JJ reacts to* ANYTHING *flashing past him fast whether its a cat or a child flying down the inside of him (on the pavement) on a scooter/skateboard. He's also more reactive of a the sound of dog flying at him from behind a fence (on his left) than seeing a dog barking at him, he's less reactive when its on his right side for some reason.
> 
> Now I don't know whether that's cos he can't see as well on that side and just 'sees' a flash of movement and reacts before he's registered what it is or if he can't see on that side so is just reacting to the sound cos he thinks a dog is rushing at him. If I stop and he stops and relaises there's a wall/gate between him and the other dog he stops (he's usually turned to face it by then), but he passed an eye test the other year and I was told there was nothing wrong with his sight.
> 
> ...


I currently own a border collie (from working lines) and have owned many more in the past. What you described is normal behaviour for the breed. Nothing to do with his eyes or anything.


----------



## BlueJay (Sep 20, 2013)

ellenlouisepascoe said:


> Believe it or not I called into town yesterday after taking Skyla to the vets, as it was hot and the thing I wanted was outside on the market I took her with me. I was facing the shop, Skyla on lead at my feet but facing the other way and she started "wooo wooo wooooing" I turned around to see a little girl stroking her!!! Her Dad was squatting down with his camera out to take a picture!! She was 2/3 years old at most.
> 
> Now Skyla LOVES children , she LOVES them a little too much and quite willingly jumps up at them and can knock them over. So I crouch down next to the little girl and grab Skyla's collar while reminding the Dad he should not let his daughter walk up to strange dogs because the next one might not be so friendly.
> 
> I was walking back to the car and just thinking how that could have been a totally different situation if Skyla was human aggressive or just plain didn't like kids.


Hiccup is scared of most things. He's had a child come at him trying to stroke him before, so he's understandably hid behind me . "He doesn't want a fuss, sorry". I turn to walk away and said child follows and continues to try to stroke him from behind!!
Best part was when mum shouted to me "stop being so rude, she just wants to stroke it!"
F off!!!!

Then there's there's the tweenager that grabbed Ripley's face and stuck fingers in her muzzle!
Plus the child (school age) that legged it across the park and threw arms around Sam's neck "aww, greyhound!" (???)

And people blame the dogs when they bite.......
Some parents need a good smack.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

IncaThePup said:


> You keep saying the Mal was 'under control'...killing another dog is not what I call 'under control'!
> 
> I agree the JRT wasn't under control and the old person shouldn't have had it off-lead if it didn't have a good recall, but what if it had been a small child that had run up the dog and tried to hug it and the dog bit the child cos it grabbed it? You know the dog is going to get the blame even if its the child that caused the reaction.
> 
> ...


The fact the Mal was on the lead, is imo sufficient control the dog cannot run amok and attack every dog in the area, a dog off lead with little or no recall skills ran into danger. It is not acceptable for owners to believe my dog can be off lead, he's harmless, he can't intimidate anyone look at him, bless. Well he can some people have a fear of dogs, some people have allergies and some people have dog reactive dogs who also have a right to exercise their dogs in a responsible manner, if all dog owners were as considerate we would have a perfect world.

As you say most of the problems are training issues in this case both with the Mal and the JR.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Easy to pass judgement when we don't know the facts. For all we know the off leash JRT could have been minding its own business passing the on leash Mal on a narrow path and the Mal just grabbed it. Or the on leash Mal could have lunged and pulled its owner off balance so they lost control momentarily. The JRT approaching the Mal is not the only situation where this could have happened. The most likely one? Perhaps. But I know a hell of a lot of on leash dogs who wouldn't see under control with a telescope and who often drag their owners over to other dogs. Which is probably why on leash doesn't necessarily mean under control in the eyes of the law.


----------



## speug (Nov 1, 2011)

IncaThePup said:


> Similarly you have never met my dogs but are convinced there is nothing wrong with my dogs sight without ever having met him!
> 
> Interestingly he's NEVER chased shadows, though he'll chase anything zooming through his field of vision. ..except bubbles! (when neighbours kids have been playing with bubble machines and they've blown over into our garden)..unless he's sat right in front of you or the machine and knows bubbles are coming. Obviously its all to do with his prey drive that he can't find a stationary ball (that he's stood right next to) without directions but can track a moving one when he knows you're throwing it for him? ...I find that a little odd but maybe I just need to do more research on the collie prey drive.


My collies don't chase as a default behaviour although they certainly watch a lot of moving animals - they know what is alive and what isn't and have no interest in moving vehicles etc as I've taught them that they are not interesting. They don't chase bubbles that drift in from somewhere else but if I blow the bubbles then its a game and they do chase them - not a sight thing more what's fun and what's just something happening.
Because collies tend to be visually stimulated first and foremost every collie I've had has looked for things before attempting to find things by smell and more than one has found stationary objects difficult unless directed. Our first collie nearly caught a rabbit one day but as he was a couple of strides from catching it, it stopped and he completely lost it. and Angus frequently loses toys in the garden although Cuillin who likes to sniff things out can always find things - not an eyesight problem but just the way different dogs react to what's around them and movement tends to be what turns collies on.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> I can only speak from experience with my dog. JJ reacts to* ANYTHING *flashing past him fast whether its a cat or a child flying down the inside of him (on the pavement) on a scooter/skateboard. He's also more reactive of a the sound of dog flying at him from behind a fence (on his left) than seeing a dog barking at him, he's less reactive when its on his right side for some reason.
> 
> Now I don't know whether that's cos he can't see as well on that side and just 'sees' a flash of movement and reacts before he's registered what it is or if he can't see on that side so is just reacting to the sound cos he thinks a dog is rushing at him. If I stop and he stops and relaises there's a wall/gate between him and the other dog he stops (he's usually turned to face it by then), but he passed an eye test the other year and I was told there was nothing wrong with his sight.
> 
> ...


Well your experience is one dog Inca one so very limited. You assumed wrong, there is a saying "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" its not the first time you've made assumptions like it? Nor is it the first time you have been advised that your assumption is incorrect! This is exactly why certain breeds are stigmatised!!!!

I would assume most children wouldn't run at dogs trying to bite them


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> Easy to pass judgement when we don't know the facts. For all we know the off leash JRT could have been minding its own business passing the on leash Mal on a narrow path and the Mal just grabbed it. Or the on leash Mal could have lunged and pulled its owner off balance so they lost control momentarily. The JRT approaching the Mal is not the only situation where this could have happened. The most likely one? Perhaps. But I know a hell of a lot of on leash dogs who wouldn't see under control with a telescope and who often drag their owners over to other dogs. Which is probably why on leash doesn't necessarily mean under control in the eyes of the law.


Doesn't equate to if a child ran past the dog would eat it!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> Similarly you have never met my dogs but are convinced there is nothing wrong with my dogs sight without ever having met him!
> 
> Interestingly he's NEVER chased shadows, though he'll chase anything zooming through his field of vision. ..except bubbles! (when neighbours kids have been playing with bubble machines and they've blown over into our garden)..unless he's sat right in front of you or the machine and knows bubbles are coming. Obviously its all to do with his prey drive that he can't find a stationary ball (that he's stood right next to) without directions but can track a moving one when he knows you're throwing it for him? ...I find that a little odd but maybe I just need to do more research on the collie prey drive.


No dear...your vet has already told you that your dog has nothing wrong with his eyes...it still doesn't take away the fact that all you describe is just a collie, nothing more and nothing less...My dog also loses bright coloured balls if he gets distracted (I have tried to explain this to you before) and there is zero wrong with my dogs sight, he even walks into lamp posts if he is concentrating on something else...You have a drivey collie with impulse control issues that is all!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cabot said:


> An elderly friend of mine was out walking his dog when it was savaged to death by an Alaskan Malamute dog. The owner was apologetic, but the distraught elderly man had to carry the body of his beloved pet home covered in blood. What rights does he have as only by chance we have found out that the malamute owner happens to stay no more than 300m away. Police were called but took no action as it was discovered that the malamute was on a lead and the Jack Russell was not. The incident happened in a nearby park.


As you are in Scotland it might be worth contacting your local council about the dog in question.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Doesn't equate to if a child ran past the dog would eat it!


Definitely not! Not sure who said it does but it wasn't me. My highly dog aggressive dog who had killed multiple smaller animals and had a history of sheep worrying was reasonably safe around children. He was frightened of noisy ones but that was an issue completely unrelated to his dog aggression or prey drive. And his choice was to run away from them. They're completely separate issues and a dog aggressive dog or a dog with high prey drive may be as safe as any dog can be around children.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> Definitely not! Not sure who said it does but it wasn't me. My highly dog aggressive dog who had killed multiple smaller animals and had a history of sheep worrying was reasonably safe around children. He was frightened of noisy ones but that was an issue completely unrelated to his dog aggression or prey drive. And his choice was to run away from them. They're completely separate issues and a dog aggressive dog or a dog with high prey drive may be as safe as any dog can be around children.


Inca made the assumption which is why the threads gone off on tangent..


----------



## StrawberryBlonde (May 27, 2015)

How awful for all involved, your poor elderly friend must be in shock.
We came across a malamute in our park & the owner made a point of saying 'he doesn't like other dogs' but others with me let their dogs go up to it saying "oh look, but he's good with my dog, everyone loves my dog" NEXT moment the malamute snapped & was reacting badly. No one was hurt but I was so mad at my 'dog walking buddies' for letting their smaller dogs near the malamute after the owner had given a warning! IF anything had happened, you couldn't blame the malamute or owner!


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

cabot said:


> An elderly friend of mine was out walking his dog when it was savaged to death by an Alaskan Malamute dog. The owner was apologetic, but the distraught elderly man had to carry the body of his beloved pet home covered in blood. What rights does he have as only by chance we have found out that the malamute owner happens to stay no more than 300m away. Police were called but took no action as it was discovered that the malamute was on a lead and the Jack Russell was not. The incident happened in a nearby park.


Awful to hear of and I'm very sad for the little dog and gentlemen concerned, but no one actually saw exactly what happened. The fact that the Malamute was on lead and the JRT off seems to indicate that the JRT must have run up to the Malamute, it sounds unlikely that the Malamute could have just approached him and just attacked savaging him to death.

Having had similar happen to me when mine was on lead and even in the street its not a pleasant experience from the other point of view either a loose dog who I found out after had gotten out of the house without the owner realising started to approach mine on lead, I tried to divert the situation by trying to make it back off and go away, but it kept coming and lunged at my dog, I did manage to get them apart and still don't know how managed it to this day, but not without, puncture wounds on my dog and myself in the process, the other dog ended up with one solitary puncture wound. It was only when the owner heard me shouting help, that he come out, as I was stuck holding my one by the collar and the other smaller dog by his collar at arms length.

I am sorry for the owner and his loss of the little dog, but there is often usually two sides to any incident that cause it to happen in the first place. Size isn't always the issue either, because small dogs are just as capable of starting issues and causing fights as bigger dogs are, I have had incidences where little ones are barking and lunging at mine as Ive gone past and mine haven't even acknowledged them and taken no notice so its not just down to breed either. The other dog in the incident I have mentioned happened to be one that's got extremely bad press, but I don't automatically class all of that breed as a problem.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Zaros said:


> Aye! Maybe the owner of the child should be a little more attentive and keep the little blighter on a leash at all times.


And preferably muzzled.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

Zaros said:


> Aye! Maybe the owner of the child should be a little more attentive and keep the little blighter on a leash at all times.


Yip, agreed, we used to call them reins for tots, stops them running off and been abducted.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2015)

IncaThePup said:


> I can only speak from experience with my dog. JJ reacts to* ANYTHING *flashing past him fast whether its a cat or a child flying down the inside of him (on the pavement) on a scooter/skateboard. He's also more reactive of a the sound of dog flying at him from behind a fence (on his left) than seeing a dog barking at him, he's less reactive when its on his right side for some reason.
> 
> Now I don't know whether that's cos he can't see as well on that side and just 'sees' a flash of movement and reacts before he's registered what it is or if he can't see on that side so is just reacting to the sound cos he thinks a dog is rushing at him. If I stop and he stops and relaises there's a wall/gate between him and the other dog he stops (he's usually turned to face it by then), but he passed an eye test the other year and I was told there was nothing wrong with his sight.
> 
> ...


You're completely ignoring one of your dog's most powerful senses - his nose. I guarantee he can tell the difference between a dog, a cat, and a child by his nose, even if he were blind and deaf. 
And he he can't tell the difference between a cat and a kid, or worse, shows predatory behavior towards a child, that's IMHO a HUGE problem that needs to be addressed professionally. Like I said plenty of dogs kill small furries regularly - for some it's part of their daily job, and yet they show no predatory interest whatsoever in children. Nor should they!!! It is wholly outside of the true nature of dogs - canis familiaris - who have evolved alongside of man since we walked upright, to have any inclination to see humans as prey. (Unless said human is dressed in a bite suit, or brandishing a bite sleeve, and then it's still the suit/sleeve the dog is after, not the human.)

And yes, dogs can adjust/alter their behavior, including their bite force in milliseconds. Watch a dog catch a frisbee, play bitey-face with a friend, dogs have amazing control over their teeth and jaws, much like we use our hands. Obviously some are better at it than others, but there should be no case of mistaken identity between a child and prey. I think we do dogs a disservice by expecting/excusing that there might be.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2015)

On a slightly separate note, but relevant to the conversation...
All this talk about big dogs should be kept under better control etc., I think if I had a small dog, I’d work really hard to make sure that small dog had exceptional dog skills and didn’t put him/herself at risk around other dogs. 
I’m thinking of my friend’s tiny terrier who she raised around her other big dogs, and socialized to tons of different breeds. This little dog has the most amazing dog skills, she’s really fantastic, and one of the few small dogs I’ll allow my guys to play with. She’s just that good at reading other dogs, de-escalating over excitement and just generally keeping things happy and friendly. 
Another friend has a beagle puppy (who’s not a puppy anymore) and another dog who’s dog skills are just phenomenal. This pup has met tons of breeds of all sizes and is a confident, happy, friendly little girl who knows how to behave around all types of dogs in all sorts of contexts.
Or my other friend’s small terrier mix that she got as a rescue. She was terrified of big dogs so my friend made a point of working with her (we actually used Lunar, our great dane) to get her more confident and less likely to trigger dangerous behavior in large dogs. 

Yes, large dog owners have a responsibility to encourage safe behavior around other dogs, but small dog owners ALSO have a responsibility to encourage safe behavior around other dogs.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

cabot said:


> Police were called but took no action as it was discovered that the malamute was on a lead and the Jack Russell was not.


Interesting to note that the police have already been involved. I would expect things are now closed from the official side although things could potentially be pursued as a private matter. Regardless though, it's a tragedy and not simply for the owner of the JRT. I expect the owner of the other dog was also totally shaken by the experience.



ouesi said:


> You're completely ignoring one of your dog's most powerful senses - his nose. I guarantee he can tell the difference between a dog, a cat, and a child by his nose, even if he were blind and deaf.


I can speak from experience there. Benny is completely blind, with no eyes having had them removed. He can tell another dog is around and it's direction from quite a distance and will try to head in that direction. Kids whatever have never been problematic although we do ensure that he isn't startled with touch. The main trouble we had was when being passed by bycicles which he would lunge towards but that was sound based. Now we simply have him sit as they pass with no trouble. Having a totally blind dog is amazing and really highlights the difference between human and dog senses. Humans rely on sight so much and it is their primary sense. Naturally we tend to push that "need" onto dogs. We need to ensure we always remember, dogs are not humans and we should not place human behaviours/attributes on them.


----------



## Hanlou (Oct 29, 2012)

How sad. Really sad.

This is why a) I do not allow Teddy to run up to other dogs and b) - much as @ouesi has just commented - I spent so long and worked so very hard to socialise Teddy with breeds of all shapes and sizes - including Bull Mastiffs, Boxers, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, German Shepherds etc etc ....... - so that he isn't phased by any breed and never, ever yaps at other dogs. I may have overdone it lol and sometimes wish I'd made him more dog neutral but I am happy that he's just happy to be around other dogs and is relaxed no matter what the breed.

Teddy and a large Golden Retriever were play bowing at each other only yesterday - which was lovely to see. He also made a lady laugh by standing on tiptoes to greet a gentle Greyhound properly (not randomly - we were chatting to the owners). He is a small dog and so obviously pretty vulnerable in many ways but I have always considered it to be my responsibility to fully socialise him and to not have him yapping at bigger dogs etc. it's not the responsibility of owners of bigger dogs to be passive and non-reactive to a barking, small dog in their face!

As to the "won't someone please think of the children!" comment, well...... Sort of leaves me speechless really.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Yes, large dog owners have a responsibility to encourage safe behavior around other dogs, but small dog owners ALSO have a responsibility to encourage safe behavior around other dogs.


This, it's a pity I can only like once.
My 3 large breed dogs have selective recall at best &, as I appreciate that people might find 60kg of dog running towards them a little alarming, I keep them on leads.
This is out of common courtesy & what I would see as good manners.
All I ask is that other owners show me the same courtesy by not allowing their dog, small or otherwise, to run up to mine no matter what it's intention. To me it's ill mannered if not downright rude! Luckily mine are all dog friendly but other owners don't know that &, as we have seen, it only take a second for it to end in disaster.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I have a small dog who thinks he's a large dog and has no fear. While they are generally a very dog friendly breed they also are not known for backing down if a much larger breed has had a pop for any reason so @IncaThePup I am every bit as responsible for his behavior as I am for my larger dogs I am how ever not responsible for other people's off lead dogs and neither should I be made to be whether I have a Frenchie on the end of the lead or a Rottweiler......


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2015)

Meezey said:


> I am how ever not responsible for other people's off lead dogs and neither should I be made to be whether I have a Frenchie on the end of the lead or a Rottweiler......


Agreed. Though if that dog is coming at mine and the owner has no control, I will make myself responsible for that dog's behavior, and the owner may not like how I take control of the situation. Just got back from a walk where I ended up chucking rocks at an overly territorial lab who came out in to the road to bark at us. The way I figure it, getting hit with a few pebbles is preferable to being hit by a car.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Agreed. Though if that dog is coming at mine and the owner has no control, I will make myself responsible for that dog's behavior, and the owner may not like how I take control of the situation. Just got back from a walk where I ended up chucking rocks at an overly territorial lab who came out in to the road to bark at us. The way I figure it, getting hit with a few pebbles is preferable to being hit by a car.


I have no qualms in protecting my dogs either and always will in any means I see fit, but not going to muzzle/not take out/remove the teeth of my lot just in case! I will do everything I can to stop the dog approaching mine, but if the dog doesn't back off and gets hurt I will be gutted completely gutted for my dogs and the injured dog but I won't be made to feel responsible for it, that's in the other owners court......


----------



## cabot (Jul 2, 2011)

Further to this story the malamute was on a lead pulling the owner on a bike. Not sure if that constitutes keeping it under control . The whole street is up in arms because the JRT was a friendly character and very sociable. It is ironic that the park is 2 miles away from the dog owners homes yet they are no more than 300m apart. The malamute owner has just moved in to the rental property and therefore the dogs never had a chance to socialise together otherwise the outcome may have been different. Sadly the first time they met was the last and the JRT was really badly savaged and had the skin torn off it . I am surprised the offending dog owner couldn't have at least tried to restrain it. The police have been informed of this incident as is the case in Scotland.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cabot said:


> Further to this story the malamute was on a lead pulling the owner on a bike. Not sure if that constitutes keeping it under control . The whole street is up in arms because the JRT was a friendly character and very sociable. It is ironic that the park is 2 miles away from the dog owners homes yet they are no more than 300m apart. The malamute owner has just moved in to the rental property and therefore the dogs never had a chance to socialise together otherwise the outcome may have been different. Sadly the first time they met was the last and the JRT was really badly savaged and had the skin torn off it . I am surprised the offending dog owner couldn't have at least tried to restrain it. The police have been informed of this incident as is the case in Scotland.


Can I ask why the JRT was allowed to approach a dog it didn't know nor the owner? Or did the Mal approach the JRT? Were you there at the time?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cabot said:


> Further to this story the malamute was on a lead pulling the owner on a bike. Not sure if that constitutes keeping it under control . The whole street is up in arms because the JRT was a friendly character and very sociable. It is ironic that the park is 2 miles away from the dog owners homes yet they are no more than 300m apart. The malamute owner has just moved in to the rental property and therefore the dogs never had a chance to socialise together otherwise the outcome may have been different. Sadly the first time they met was the last and the JRT was really badly savaged and had the skin torn off it . I am surprised the offending dog owner couldn't have at least tried to restrain it. The police have been informed of this incident as is the case in Scotland.


Did the mal run over to the JR, or did the JR run over to the mal whilst he was working?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

cabot said:


> Further to this story the malamute was on a lead pulling the owner on a bike. Not sure if that constitutes keeping it under control . The whole street is up in arms because the JRT was a friendly character and very sociable. It is ironic that the park is 2 miles away from the dog owners homes yet they are no more than 300m apart. The malamute owner has just moved in to the rental property and therefore the dogs never had a chance to socialise together otherwise the outcome may have been different. Sadly the first time they met was the last and the JRT was really badly savaged and had the skin torn off it . I am surprised the offending dog owner couldn't have at least tried to restrain it. The police have been informed of this incident as is the case in Scotland.


Unless you were actually there and witnessed the incident I do not understand why you are jumping to the conclusion that the offending (your words not mine) dog owner could not have at least tried to restrain it?

How do you know he did not?

Could you restrain a terrier from snapping the neck of a rat or another dog from doing the same with a rabbit?

i am not surprised that the whole street is up in arms as you allege if the malamute owner has just moved in and of course if everyone has jumped to the conclusion that the malamute is the "offender".

I am also not sure why you assume that the outcome may have been different had the dogs had a chance to socialise even presuming that would have been desired by either owner or even advisable.


----------



## lisa0307 (Aug 25, 2009)

lostbear said:


> owners of small dogs are just as responsible for their dogs' behaviour as owners of large ones. There are a lot of little dogs which repeatedly get away with behaviour that would get a large dog euthanised after the first incident. It isn't fair or right that small dogs have a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to aggression, just because of their size.


As devastating as this is and I feel so very sorry for the dog and the owner I have to agree.


----------



## Pollyperkins (Aug 23, 2015)

lisa0307 said:


> As devastating as this is and I feel so very sorry for the dog and the owner I have to agree.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

cabot said:


> The whole street is up in arms because the JRT was a friendly character and very sociable.


All too often in today's society people start or join a witch hunt without recognising or knowing the details. What is being told.. big bad new dog killed poor little dog. Imagine if an "unknown" but friendly someone with an unloaded gun raised it against a soldier on combat patrol in Iraq.. what is the likely reaction? It's not a simple case of friendly dog vs big nasty dog, that's a human take on the situation. Big/Small dog = potential threat as far as dogs are concened as a dog = dog regardless of size.


----------



## Pollyperkins (Aug 23, 2015)

There are loads of dogs in our street of all different sizes all socialise really well . our neighbours little dead dog was hugely popular and not at all aggressive we don't know exactly what happened but we do know that the park where the man was towing the bike is an urban family park with a kids play park with many families who excercise their puppies and dogs there and we have never had such an incident i have had big dogs and small dogs both should be trained to socialise with people and other dogs if they cannot tolerate a busy environment and might be a bit unpredictable there are lots of wild places near here to take dogs where they can run and work off their energy. This is a really friendly street and no one would be mean to new people but we are all really upset and worried about the safety of our dogs and the well being of our elderly neighbour it would be nice if the new people talked to everyone and explained their side wouldn't you be ?


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

It's always difficult to comment on these without knowing the full story.

Being on a lead does not necessarily equal being under control.

We all know that off lead dogs should not approach on lead ones, but equally we know that a huge number of dog owners either don't care or are blissfully unaware of the 'unwritten rules' of dog walking and think nothing of allowing off lead ones to approach on lead ones.

But again the blame game doesn't really work without all facts. These tragedies are usually a culmination of factors.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Pollyperkins said:


> There are loads of dogs in our street of all different sizes all socialise really well . our neighbours little dead dog was hugely popular and not at all aggressive we don't know exactly what happened but we do know that the park where the man was towing the bike is an urban family park with a kids play park with many families who excercise their puppies and dogs there and we have never had such an incident i have had big dogs and small dogs both should be trained to socialise with people and other dogs if they cannot tolerate a busy environment and might be a bit unpredictable there are lots of wild places near here to take dogs where they can run and work off their energy. This is a really friendly street and no one would be mean to new people but we are all really upset and worried about the safety of our dogs and the well being of our elderly neighbour it would be nice if the new people talked to everyone and explained their side wouldn't you be ?


Were you there??? Why are you worried surely it's easy to not allow your dog to approach strange dogs!

Sadly this seems to be more about the fact an "outsider" is responsible!!


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Pollyperkins said:


> There are loads of dogs in our street of all different sizes all socialise really well . our neighbours little dead dog was hugely popular and not at all aggressive we don't know exactly what happened but we do know that the park where the man was towing the bike is an urban family park with a kids play park with many families who excercise their puppies and dogs there and we have never had such an incident i have had big dogs and small dogs both should be trained to socialise with people and other dogs if they cannot tolerate a busy environment and might be a bit unpredictable there are lots of wild places near here to take dogs where they can run and work off their energy. This is a really friendly street and no one would be mean to new people but we are all really upset and worried about the safety of our dogs and the well being of our elderly neighbour it would be nice if the new people talked to everyone and explained their side wouldn't you be ?


I'm afraid it isn't realistic to expect all dogs to want to socialise. You cannot "train" an otherwise unsociable dog to be sociable. My own Jack Russell completely ignores other dogs and would never go looking for trouble with one, but if a dog comes tearing up to her or being pushy, she will see it off.,

Obviously, none of us were there at this particular incident but, if the Malamute was running alongside a bike, then the owner wasn't allowing him to mingle with other dogs, so if the Jack Russell has run after the Mal or even up to it, blame can't be apportioned to the owner of the Mal.

Such incidents are horrible and leave people feeling really shaken, but to me, it could have been avoided, had the Jack Russell been under control.

If anyone allows their dog to run freely to other dogs, sooner or later, their luck will run out.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Pollyperkins said:


> This is a really friendly street and no one would be mean to new people but we are all really upset and worried about the safety of our dogs and the well being of our elderly neighbour it would be nice if the new people talked to everyone and explained their side wouldn't you be ?


Really yet the Mal owner who God forbid rents has been put on trial and found gulity by the "street" already!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Pollyperkins said:


> There are loads of dogs in our street of all different sizes all socialise really well . our neighbours little dead dog was hugely popular and not at all aggressive we don't know exactly what happened but we do know that the park where the man was towing the bike is an urban family park with a kids play park with many families who excercise their puppies and dogs there and we have never had such an incident i have had big dogs and small dogs both should be trained to socialise with people and other dogs if they cannot tolerate a busy environment and might be a bit unpredictable there are lots of wild places near here to take dogs where they can run and work off their energy. This is a really friendly street and no one would be mean to new people but we are all really upset and worried about the safety of our dogs and the well being of our elderly neighbour it would be nice if the new people talked to everyone and explained their side wouldn't you be ?


I am afraid I do not agree that dogs should be trained to socialise with people and other dogs.

There is absolutely no NEED for this to occur.

In the event as this dog owner has just moved in you have no idea whether or not this dog is or is not sociable with other dogs or people (unless you can point to some evidence of this)

Aggression is a behaviour, not a label.

If you slam the door or phone down does that make you "aggressive" per se?

The fact that you have never had such an incident is also no indicator of the temperament, training or socialisation of this dog or in fact of any other, you may have just been lucky.

Now you have injected several other issues into the discussion including the suggestion that new people are not talking to everyone.

I love the "kitchen sink" approach people bring to arguments...................................


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

It also seems neither the OP or friendly neighbour PollyPerkins were even there!


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Now please remember we should not allow facts to get in the way of personal opinions...............


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Interesting how another 'witness' who also isn't a direct witness to what happened has appeared, it smells like bit of a witch hunt to?

I live in a village full of nasty little gossips & they are much the same as these 2.

Horrible though it is, offlead, uncontrolled dogs owned by people with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement are the bane of people with reactive dogs who are under control & leashed.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> Now please remember we should not allow facts to get in the way of personal opinions...............


Yeah, but, it's so much more FUN if you make it up as you go along.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Pollyperkins said:


> There are loads of dogs in our street of all different sizes all socialise really well . our neighbours little dead dog was hugely popular and not at all aggressive we don't know exactly what happened but we do know that the park where the man was towing the bike is an urban family park with a kids play park with many families who excercise their puppies and dogs there and we have never had such an incident i have had big dogs and small dogs both should be trained to socialise with people and other dogs if they cannot tolerate a busy environment and might be a bit unpredictable there are lots of wild places near here to take dogs where they can run and work off their energy. This is a really friendly street and no one would be mean to new people but we are all really upset and worried about the safety of our dogs and the well being of our elderly neighbour it would be nice if the new people talked to everyone and explained their side wouldn't you be ?


I'm glad that all the dogs in your street are sociable. However, not every dog is, and that is a fact of life.

If the Malamute was known to have issues with other dogs, then yes, the onus is on the owner to keep it suitability restrained to minimise the chance of trouble. It is true that a busy urban park is a poor choice of walk for a dog that has issues with other dogs. HOWEVER, this is all speculation. For all we know this dog is generally sociable and it was a freak incident and first time the dog has ever done such thing. There IS a first time for everything.

At the same time if the JRT approached the Malamute who was minding it's own business, is the owner of the JRT totally blameless? the answer is no. I would never in a million years allow my to breed to approach any large breed that is known for having a strong prey drive. There is naivety on all sides and I think people need to be less pink and fluffy and more proactive about understanding their dogs behaviour, size, etc.

Context is everything!!


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

So it wasn't just on a lead...it was actually attached to a bike with a person on it - but you think it should have been restrained more? And not the offlead dog? Um, ok...

It must have been horrendous for both owners tbh and of course you don't expect your dog to die because it approached another dog, but it's seriously not ok to let your dog approach a dog that's pulling a bike.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Whilst the poster(s) may believe God is on their team I am not sure that "There is nativity on all sides "  ROFLMAO


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Pollyperkins said:


> There are loads of dogs in our street of all different sizes all socialise really well . our neighbours little dead dog was hugely popular and not at all aggressive we don't know exactly what happened


Maybe you should have left it there as that sums it all up. Your dogs all get on with one another so you assume all dogs should. You don't know what happened.

Instead of placing blame and trying to punish a dog for simply being a dog, why not all get together and try to integrate the "newbie" into your society? Allow all the dogs to socialise in a controlled settings according to what the dogs/owners feel comfortable with. Not necessarily all together but slowly and surely. That way you learn about the new dog and any quirks, welcome someone new to your community and actually strengthen it in the long term.


----------



## lisa0307 (Aug 25, 2009)

Our Yorkie was attacked by a JRT last year....he'd just come back from the vets and I was walking him slowly around the block so he could get some exercise, he was on a lead and coming towards us was a JRT also on a lead.
I pulled ours to one side and the JRT's owner decided to let his extending lead go...for no reason the JRT lunged at our dogs face trying to tear in to him...I pushed it off and picked ours up...as I did so the JRT grabbed our dogs coat and was hanging off it, so I had mine and the JRT to deal with.
JRT's owner gives his a smack to make it let go, shrugs his shoulders and says " dogs eh" and walks off.
I meanwhile, am checking our dog is ok and shouted to him, " don't you want to know if my dog is ok and not injured"...he didn't bother to reply and kept walking.
On asking around since, I've found out this bitch is extremely vicious and gets walked by lots of different people because the owner can't be arsed and has had no training.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> Whilst the poster(s) may believe God is on their team I am not sure that "There is nativity on all sides "  ROFLMAO


Haha......dang auto correct.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

THE SELF RIGHTEOUS DOG OWNER'S GUIDE TO CAREFREE 'DOG WALKING'

Step one : Take your dog to a park. Any park will do so long as there are plenty other dogs there.

Step two : As soon as you set foot inside the gate, unclip the lead and let your dog tear off to amuse himself as he sees fit.

Step three : Wander casually off and attach yourself to the nearest group of people. Join in the conversation.

Step four : Stand around gassing for an hour, glancing around every now and then to see what your dog is doing. Don't worry if you can't see him, he'll be okay.

Step five : When you become bored, round up your dog and go home.

If this procedure is interrupted by an ugly incident when your dog runs to an onlead dog, jumps all over it and gets bitten for his efforts, immediately rally the troops, and rouse your fellow casual 'dog walkers' into becoming an ugly, flaming torch wielding, angry mob and attack the hapless owner of the onlead dog.

Involve the Police and local newspaper, wherever possible.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

The sad thing is that owners of "sociable" dogs often don't see that their dog is a nuisance. My dog is "sociable" in that he would love to meet and greet every dog he comes across. But if I were to allow him to go up to every dog we see and he were to be snapped at or bitten then imo the fault would be mine. And when I owned an aggressive dog I did everything I possibly could to keep other dogs safe from him (and in turn him safe from being seized and destroyed as a dangerous dog) yet all these "sociable" dogs would approach him no matter where we walked. Even in the street.


----------



## lisa0307 (Aug 25, 2009)

Sweety said:


> THE SELF RIGHTEOUS DOG OWNER'S GUIDE TO CAREFREE 'DOG WALKING'
> 
> Step one : Take your dog to a park. Any park will do so long as there are plenty other dogs there.
> 
> ...


Our park is full of these...you've summed this up brilliantly..couldn't agree more.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

smokeybear said:


> Now please remember we should not allow facts to get in the way of personal opinions...............


Too late....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Cian is very sociable not the slightest bit aggressive and popular can you imagine the uproar if I allowed him to run up to everyone with their dogs!!!


----------



## lisa0307 (Aug 25, 2009)

When I take our dog to the park I constantly get asked "why don't you let him off the lead, he'll be alright", to which I reply, "when did they award you dog owner of the year"....no reply.
Our dog would not be happy left to his own devices to run around in a park and I wouldn't let him because he would annoy bigger dogs.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> Horrible though it is, offlead, uncontrolled dogs owned by people with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement are the bane of people with reactive dogs who are under control & leashed.


I was thinking about people with reactive dogs today and all the stupidity I deal with on a daily basis, and my heart just aches for those dogs.
Just today, we had the loose lab that I chucked rocks at, two other loose dogs, one who always barges out of nowhere and surprises me every single time, a new dog, teeny tiny little guy in his yard barking his head off at us... I can't imagine what it must be like for a dog with a short supply of spoons


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I would imagine the owner of the Mal must have been pretty shaken up and being on a bike might explain why he/she couldn't intervene that quickly, perhaps they even got injured getting off or falling off said bike in the scuffle. Its a very very sad situation and I really do feel for the elderly JRT owner but equally for the Mal owner who must feel absolutely devastated to have had this happen so soon after moving to a new area and now know all the neighbours are up in arms about their dog and the police might come knocking at any time.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

This thread is still going?

I'm one of the lucky ones these days who doesn't come across any dogs out on our walks. The only dogs qwe meet now are @Hanwombat's two  It's been brilliant for Missy. I take Cash to a busy park setting every weekend and we set up a little area of our own, play and train and are never disturbed by off lead dogs, bar one time back in Feb time maybe. Mostly places we go are full of well behaved dogs and respectful owners. I often stand around and just take in other owners/dogs and feel embarrassed that it would likely be mine that would shatter the peace & quiet 

I really feel cases of loose dogs running amok are not as widespread as sometimes this forum makes out. And in the midst of complaining about loose dogs, we forget the positive encounters.

Hope I haven't jinxed anything now by saying that!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Sarah1983 said:


> The sad thing is that owners of "sociable" dogs often don't see that their dog is a nuisance.


Exactly, am sure the lady who owns the bosterous boxer who has annoyed all myd dgos would see him as incredibly sociable & my dogs not because they don't take kindly to being jumped on


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> This thread is still going?
> 
> I'm one of the lucky ones these days who doesn't come across any dogs out on our walks. The only dogs qwe meet now are @Hanwombat's two  It's been brilliant for Missy. I take Cash to a busy park setting every weekend and we set up a little area of our own, play and train and are never disturbed by off lead dogs, bar one time back in Feb time maybe. Mostly places we go are full of well behaved dogs and respectful owners. I often stand around and just take in other owners/dogs and feel embarrassed that it would likely be mine that would shatter the peace & quiet
> 
> ...


No I think area plays a huge part of it.
Where I am living now I am very selective about where I take Thai due to out of control dogs, when I walked him up in Saint Ives when we were looking at a house up there I noticed a huge difference in attitude. We were not bothered by other dogs, everyone we passed put their dogs on leash after spotting Thai was, it was like a different world to the one I experience day in, and day out where I live at the moment.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Cian is very sociable not the slightest bit aggressive and popular can you imagine the uproar if I allowed him to run up to everyone with their dogs!!!


If he ran up to me I'd Rottienap him, stow him away in my bag marked 'swag' & beat a hasty retreat


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> No I think area plays a huge part of it.
> Where I am living now I am very selective about where I take Thai due to out of control dogs, when I walked him up in Saint Ives when we were looking at a house up there I noticed a huge difference in attitude. We were not bothered by other dogs, everyone we past put their dogs on leash after spotting Thai was, it was like a different world to the one I experience day in, and day out where I live at the moment.


I agree, we moved to this house because its next to a large open heath, lovely for dog walking but also as it is surrounded by houses on most sides it gets very busy and there are only a couple of paths so whoever is out there you are likely to meet. We had no end of run ins with people over there. We now rarely go there even though its why we bought this house but prefer to drive for 10-15 mins to the forest. Completely different there as so many different walks and routes to take, once away from the car park we rarely bump into any one else, regularly do 2 hr walks without seeing another dog although we do have cows to deal with and a few cyclists. When we do meet people with dogs there is so much more space to either avoid or get your dog back and on lead, can hardly remember a cross word with anyone there whereas if we went on the local heath I know I would be coming home with steam out of my ears on a regular basis.


----------



## Hanlou (Oct 29, 2012)

It's funny - I was saying to husband today that other dog owners seem to find it almost offensive that you pull your dog in and don't allow them to greet their dog as a matter of course... 

On narrow paths (a few of these where we were today ) I often pull Teddy in and let other dogs past. Then you get the "It's ok she/he's friendly" in a tone that implies that by pulling my dog in and not allowing the dogs to greet automatically I'm accusing them of having an aggressive dog?! I usually respond "oh he's friendly but some dogs find him a bit OTT" - thus making Teddy seem like the naughty dog lol. It's tempting to respond "well I don't know that do I?!" but I don't. 

I don't mind Teddy greeting dogs sometimes but not every time and certainly not with dogs whose character I know nothing about...... (By the way, most of the dogs were small dogs such as Cocker Spaniels etc). 

I will continue 'offending' folks by keeping my dog safe and also by preventing him from hassling dogs that may not want any interaction at all. It seemed more noticeable today, perhaps because it was much busier there than usual.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

smokeybear said:


> Whilst the poster(s) may believe God is on their team I am not sure that "There is nativity on all sides "  ROFLMAO


 Ah! The joys of autocorrect!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Dogloverlou said:


> This thread is still going?
> 
> I'm one of the lucky ones these days who doesn't come across any dogs out on our walks. The only dogs qwe meet now are @Hanwombat's two  It's been brilliant for Missy. I take Cash to a busy park setting every weekend and we set up a little area of our own, play and train and are never disturbed by off lead dogs, bar one time back in Feb time maybe. Mostly places we go are full of well behaved dogs and respectful owners. I often stand around and just take in other owners/dogs and feel embarrassed that it would likely be mine that would shatter the peace & quiet
> 
> ...





StormyThai said:


> No I think area plays a huge part of it.
> Where I am living now I am very selective about where I take Thai due to out of control dogs, when I walked him up in Saint Ives when we were looking at a house up there I noticed a huge difference in attitude. We were not bothered by other dogs, everyone we past put their dogs on leash after spotting Thai was, it was like a different world to the one I experience day in, and day out where I live at the moment.


Totally totally dependant on the area.

I used to live in a very middle classy area full of Barbour and Le Chamau (or whatever it is!!) clad people with Doodles, Labs, Golden's, Beagles and Spaniels, all 'really friendly'....meaning it's ok to allow them to run the length of a field after your dog, then run around in circles barking at your dog, jump on your dog etc......all under the guise of being "really friendly!". I honestly didn't know if I was missing something half the time as interaction is a surely a two way street? meaning if you see someone with an on lead dog blatantly trying to avoid you, you might extend the same courtesy? but apparently not.

I live in an area that's more of a mixed bag now and so far haven't had any issues with out of control dogs. I expect dogs to approach when I go to busier areas like country parks, but they have all been calm and respectful which my dogs are fine with.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

http://suzanneclothier.com/the-articles/he-just-wants-say-hi

I know must have seen it already but it is still my favourite article


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Another article which is interesting although posted before:

https://positively.com/contributors...ing-the-ability-to-get-along-with-each-other/


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> This thread is still going?
> 
> I'm one of the lucky ones these days who doesn't come across any dogs out on our walks. The only dogs qwe meet now are @Hanwombat's two  It's been brilliant for Missy. I take Cash to a busy park setting every weekend and we set up a little area of our own, play and train and are never disturbed by off lead dogs, bar one time back in Feb time maybe. Mostly places we go are full of well behaved dogs and respectful owners. I often stand around and just take in other owners/dogs and feel embarrassed that it would likely be mine that would shatter the peace & quiet
> 
> ...


So people are making it up? Or imaging it? I am lucky that we can go to off the track areas, many aren't so lucky, I don't go to our beaches during sunny times for that reason, nor do I walk in our local park! Oddly the park has an enclosed off lead area, but everyone let's their dogs free run out of it! Stop going when an in season off lead bitch mobbed Cian the whole way round the park.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Sometimes a thread takes on a life of its own, like this one has.

I feel sorry for the owner of the JRT who must be devastated to see that happen to his dog. It's very sad.

I also feel sorry for the owner of the Malamute. Many of us own or have owned dogs with high prey drives, or dogs that can do lethal damage incredibly quickly, and we have seen what they are capable of, but that doesn't detract from the horror (and guilt) we feel when we see it.

But apart from that, no comment.
I didn't see the incident, so can't possibly know what happened to comment any further.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

My preferred place here to walk Spen we can easily meet 50 dogs in a 2 hour walk. Most will approach for a sniff and perhaps a brief play, regardless of whether Spen is on leash or not. Most owners make no effort to stop them. I fully expect it in that area and am more relaxed about Spen approaching other dogs there than i am in other places. Not so relaxed he's running off to meet and greet but it's narrow paths and if the other dog and/or owner shows no avoidance signals then I don't worry about him going for a sniff as we pass. It's an area I avoided completely with Rupert because it's so popular and there's no way at all of creating space for a reactive dog.

Where we walked today we rarely see anyone else and when we do dogs are usually on leash. So definitely dependent on area.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

labradrk said:


> Totally totally dependant on the area.
> 
> I used to live in a very middle classy area full of Barbour and Le Chamau (or whatever it is!!) clad people with Doodles, Labs, Golden's, Beagles and Spaniels, all 'really friendly'....meaning it's ok to allow them to run the length of a field after your dog, then run around in circles barking at your dog, jump on your dog etc......all under the guise of being "really friendly!". I honestly didn't know if I was missing something half the time as interaction is a surely a two way street? meaning if you see someone with an on lead dog blatantly trying to avoid you, you might extend the same courtesy? but apparently not.
> 
> I live in an area that's more of a mixed bag now and so far haven't had any issues with out of control dogs. I expect dogs to approach when I go to busier areas like country parks, but they have all been calm and respectful which my dogs are fine with.


Le Chameau .... The most comfortable & warm wellies I've ever owned!

Totally agree it's dependant on areas - locally we have a load of youths walking dog with no leads, doing whatever they like. We rarely walk locally.

We drive off out to the countryside and rarely see anyone which is a much preferred option for us having 3 dogs. I don't want to spend my whole walk worrying what others are doing, I'd just rather walk on our own.

Yes it would be easier to walk local but it's not relaxing or enjoyable and tbh enough winds me up in the world, without dog walks making my blood boil aswell!


----------



## lisa0307 (Aug 25, 2009)

On the whole I have always found large dogs to be less aggressive, it's the smaller dogs that start trouble in the parks.
This one woman that keeps telling me to let ours off the lead has had her small dog savaged twice...both times it was off a lead and left to it's own devices while she nattered away to her friends..both times it was near death and had to have specialist treatment at Royal Vet College...and she still does it...difference now is she's got a second dog and she only got that one to keep the first one company as the first one is always so scared now, her words.
Another woman takes her small dog to the park, lets it off lead at the gate and goes to the cafe for a drink while her dog is running around outside, going up to big dogs and barking in their faces...she's more interested in her drink and talking to her mates...I can see what's going to happen even if she can't.


----------



## Rosie64 (Feb 27, 2014)

A couple of weeks ago I was sat outside a supermarket waiting for my daughter to come out with Chip when a young Toddler approx 2 - 2 1/2 came running towards us shouting doggy , doggy arms outstretched ready to grab him no parents insight , I quickly put chip on the scooter and held his harness ( he is great with little ones I have a lot of young grandchildren ) and told the little girl very softly no sweety you musn't grab the doggy like that he might bite you she turned round and ran back into the shop crying doggy bite, the parents came running out and I had to explain in great detail all that had happened and what and how I had said their response was that I was a miserable old cow she only wanted to hug him ?????


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Rosie64 said:


> A couple of weeks ago I was sat outside a supermarket waiting for my daughter to come out with Chip when a young Toddler approx 2 - 2 1/2 came running towards us shouting doggy , doggy arms outstretched ready to grab him no parents insight , I quickly put chip on the scooter and held his harness ( he is great with little ones I have a lot of young grandchildren ) and told the little girl very softly no sweety you musn't grab the doggy like that he might bite you she turned round and ran back into the shop crying doggy bite, the parents came running out and I had to explain in great detail all that had happened and what and how I had said their response was that I was a miserable old cow she only wanted to hug him ?????


On holiday last year, Mr LB had Sophie on a lead waiting for me to come out of a shop and a small child (about 2-3 years) star-jumped out in front of her from behind his dad, screaming in her face and waving his arms and laughing. Dad did nothing. Mr LB told him he should be more careful with his kid, because as it happens Sophie is pretty much bombproof - but there are plenty of dogs out there who would have been so startled they would have pounced first and been sorry later.

I bet these parents are the first ones to complain if there is any problem.

EDIT: Additionally, personally I wouldn't let my child rush away from me in case they were abducted - sometimes a strange dog is the least of your worries.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Sweety said:


> THE SELF RIGHTEOUS DOG OWNER'S GUIDE TO CAREFREE 'DOG WALKING'
> 
> Step one : Take your dog to a park. Any park will do so long as there are plenty other dogs there.
> 
> ...


God I wish you could still give rep on here!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Rosie64 said:


> A couple of weeks ago I was sat outside a supermarket waiting for my daughter to come out with Chip when a young Toddler approx 2 - 2 1/2 came running towards us shouting doggy , doggy arms outstretched ready to grab him no parents insight , I quickly put chip on the scooter and held his harness ( he is great with little ones I have a lot of young grandchildren ) and told the little girl very softly no sweety you musn't grab the doggy like that he might bite you she turned round and ran back into the shop crying doggy bite, the parents came running out and I had to explain in great detail all that had happened and what and how I had said their response was that I was a miserable old cow she only wanted to hug him ?????


I often wonder if an approprite response to this scenario would be picking someones child up, holding it under your arm and running round with it as a complete and utter stranger.

What can I say? I love kids and of course they're public property to mandhandle just like dogs are.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Phoolf said:


> I often wonder if an approprite response to this scenario would be picking someones child up, holding it under your arm and running round with it as a complete and utter stranger.
> 
> What can I say? I love kids and of course they're public property to mandhandle just like dogs are.


Laughed more than I should at that image.....


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Laughed more than I should at that image.....


You and me both . . . obviously this forum is corrupting . . .


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

It shouldn't matter what size either dog is. An off lead dog should not be permitted to approach an on lead dog regardless of size.

I discovered today that Phoebes usually 100% perfect recall and disinterest in other dogs has a few flaws that I wasn't aware of. In the park today she spotted two dogs on leads as they walked passed our gate (our garden leads out into the park) She bolted over to them and ran circles round the dogs and their owner. Luckily the two dogs paid her no attention whatsoever and the owner was graciously sympathetic as we apologised profusely.

I'm still shocked that she did it. Perhaps it was because she's getting more confident and pushing the boundaries more and more as she gets older or perhaps it was because they were near our house... Regardless of the reasons, if something had happened to her, it would have been MY fault. Not the other owner, not the other dogs, but MY fault for not having proper control of MY dog like I thought I did.

Also, regarding the comment "what if it were a child?"

Dogs and children are very different things. One is hairy and has four legs for a start. If your dog can't tell the difference between a child and another dog, then that's a completely different problem altogether. Therefore I don't see how it's relevant to this post.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sarah1983 said:


> My preferred place here to walk Spen we can easily meet 50 dogs in a 2 hour walk. Most will approach for a sniff and perhaps a brief play, regardless of whether Spen is on leash or not. Most owners make no effort to stop them. I fully expect it in that area and am more relaxed about Spen approaching other dogs there than i am in other places. Not so relaxed he's running off to meet and greet but it's narrow paths and if the other dog and/or owner shows no avoidance signals then I don't worry about him going for a sniff as we pass. It's an area I avoided completely with Rupert because it's so popular and there's no way at all of creating space for a reactive dog.
> 
> Where we walked today we rarely see anyone else and when we do dogs are usually on leash. So definitely dependent on area.


This is a very sensible post. If the majority of people want their dogs to meet and greet then if you don't or can't because of your or your dog's temperament then it is not anyone else's problem, you just have to keep away from that area. It seems the majority of dog owners are sociable as are their dogs. Having just had a holiday where there were dog walkers I found it very relaxing that most people were happy to let dogs have a sniff - only met one out of control dog and that was not serious.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


Haven't read the whole thread yet but had to comment on this quote above.

I was sitting outside a café at the local country park with my lurcher Jack laying at my feet on a normal length of lead. A woman allowed 2 adult JR's and 2 small pup JR's to run 100ft to us and jump all over Jack. Jack just stood up and said hello, but I called out to the woman to get her dogs please. She laughed and said, ha, ha, your dog probably thinks they are squirrels! I responded "Lucky for you he doesn't - he knows the difference". 

What should I do when out with my dog in future? Muzzle him just in case some idiot allows their bite sized pooch to pounce on him, and he mistakes them for a prey species? He has NEVER shown any signs of aggression/prey drive towards any dog - regardless of their size.

It could take just one bite, in the right place, with the right pressure for him to kill a small dog (probably true of most dogs TBH) - but I have no intention of muzzling my dog - "just in case".

MY dog is always on lead and under control.

There is a lady locally with a JR pup (the size of a rabbit) which she is "training/allowing" to run up to strange dogs - most of them quite capable of killing it with one bite and no warning.

Who will be to blame if the same thing happens to it? Should everyone muzzle their dog, just in case?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> Maybe we should all wait/expect facts/evidence of this attack before commenting, as is the case in other attack stories. If true then obviously this is horrible, but I thought a small percentage of our members didn't like making assumptions on posts without facts.....just sayin'.


It would be a very quiet forum if we had to wait until we were in full receipt of all the facts/evidence of every event/scenario before we were allowed to discuss the subject, surely?

I think most of us are capable of have a sensible discussion.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

tabulahrasa said:


> Not the same breed, but Brock has a pretty high prey/chase drive...but his want to chase that thing impulse isn't the same as his want to bite that one.
> 
> Obviously Brock is complicated because of his DA...but his chase instinct responds fine to training.
> 
> ...


Agree with this totally.

Jack is very switched on if he sees a cat/rabbit/squirrel/rat, but although he will spot a pigeon/pheasant/dog just as keenly, he immediately switches off once his eye tells his brain that it's not one of his prey species 

His behaviour is totally different depending on what it is that catches his eye.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

sskmick said:


> From my last experience with the Police when my dog was attacked by three off lead dogs on the public highway, clearly marked dogs must be on a lead and in my opinion his dogs were out of control. Their answer then was dogs fight that's what they do. It would have been different if the dogs had have attacked me. It made no difference to the Police that my dog was on a lead and these three were off lead in an area clearly marked that dogs are to be kept on a lead.
> 
> imo Unfortunately the fact that the dog who was attacked was off lead, the onus then lies with its owners. I learned quite quickly owning Duke that not all dogs are well socialised and happy to be around other dogs. Some dogs on leads can be more reactive towards other dogs than if they were off lead. I have found various reasons for this. I. the dog is protecting its owner. 2. the dog is reacting to its owners reactions (ie owner tenses sending out distress signals (so to speak) as a strange dog comes towards them. 3. The dog is reacting naturally but doesn't have the option of flight (to get away from the situation) so opts for the fight situation, this tends to be more so with nervous/shy dogs. Then of course there are the dogs that will not tolerate other dogs period.
> 
> ...


 I don't know when this dreadful incident occurred, but hopefully now that the DDA has been amended things would have been dealt with differently.

I was under the impression that now ALL dogs were covered and had to be under control? They certainly should be IMO.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Sweety said:


> I'm afraid it isn't realistic to expect all dogs to want to socialise. You cannot "train" an otherwise unsociable dog to be sociable. My own Jack Russell completely ignores other dogs and would never go looking for trouble with one, but if a dog comes tearing up to her or being pushy, she will see it off.,
> 
> Obviously, none of us were there at this particular incident but, if the Malamute was running alongside a bike, then the owner wasn't allowing him to mingle with other dogs, so if the Jack Russell has run after the Mal or even up to it, blame can't be apportioned to the owner of the Mal.
> 
> ...


Agree.

And, even if the Mal were muzzled, could the JR still have been injured or killed? Possibly - so is there any fool proof way of guaranteeing that a large dog will not/cannot injure or kill a smaller dog if they should come face to face in public, by whatever means? Perhaps we should ban all breeds above a certain size and with big mouths/teeth? Just in case.

Then again, if a small dog jumps up and grabs a large dog by the jugular and bites hard enough...................... I think ALL dogs should be banned, then we can be sure.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

lisa0307 said:


> Our park is full of these...you've summed this up brilliantly..couldn't agree more.


Ha ha, so is ours - we give them a VERY wide berth - even then they sometimes manage to be a right PITA!

We have quite a few newbies who have all joined the crowd and "trained" their dogs to by PITA's too! The latest is a TINY Jack Russell pup who is being allowed to run up and say hello to EVERY dog it sees (on lead or off) and ignore the owner's recall consistently! OH JOY! A new PITA for us  They just keep coming .......................... :Rage

There are a number of us who only use the park as a through route and skirt round the edges, commando style, avoiding contact


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> There is a lady locally with a JR pup (the size of a rabbit) which she is "training/allowing" to run up to strange dogs - most of them quite capable of killing it with one bite and no warning.
> 
> Who will be to blame if the same thing happens to it? Should everyone muzzle their dog, just in case?


And of course, the idiots who say "It'll do him good if another dog nips him - teach him some manners." NO! - you half-wit - that's YOUR job.

Why should someone else's dog have to do your work for you, and develop a bad reputation (and a habit of snapping) at the same time?


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> This is a very sensible post. If the majority of people want their dogs to meet and greet then if you don't or can't because of your or your dog's temperament then it is not anyone else's problem, you just have to keep away from that area. It seems the majority of dog owners are sociable as are their dogs. Having just had a holiday where there were dog walkers I found it very relaxing that most people were happy to let dogs have a sniff - only met one out of control dog and that was not serious.


In an ideal world I'd quite happily avoid walking places where people think dogs should just be running up to on lead dogs, even muzzled on lead dogs - but it's quite hard when that's just where you live...

I'm lucky in that if I drive about 15 miles, I'm in the middle of nowhere, but I can't do that everyday and I mostly walk at night and on things like sunny bank holidays I'll just not walk him at all if I can't do it at night, but, sometimes, I need to walk him near my house and I need to do it when I have time to do it.

On those days, the best I can do is to change direction when I see someone coming and keep as far off the path as I can.

So yes, his behaviour is my issue and I try to make sure it has no impact on other dog walkers, but I don't really care much about the other owner if they let their dog come over when I'm actively avoiding them, I've verbally warned them and you can see his blue muzzle from about half a mile away.

I feel a bit bad for the dog if it gets hit by a giant paw or muzzle punched, but their owner has had plenty of time to call them as I'm nowhere near the path they're on at that point.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> Agree.
> 
> *And, even if the Mal were muzzled, could the JR still have been injured or killed? * Possibly - so is there any fool proof way of guaranteeing that a large dog will not/cannot injure or kill a smaller dog if they should come face to face in public, by whatever means? Perhaps we should ban all breeds above a certain size and with big mouths/teeth? Just in case.
> 
> Then again, if a small dog jumps up and grabs a large dog by the jugular and bites hard enough...................... I think ALL dogs should be banned, then we can be sure.


Good point. A "muzzle-punch" from a large dog could certainly break ribs on a smaller one, and I wouldn't be surprised if it occasionally cause death - and of course, a big dog, especially if it still had its dew-claws, could stand on and seriously injure a small dog.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

lostbear said:


> Good point. A "muzzle-punch" from a large dog could certainly break ribs on a smaller one, and I wouldn't be surprised if it occasionally cause death - and of course, a big dog, especially if it still had its dew-claws, could stand on and seriously injure a small dog.


When my rough collie was a pup, she was attacked by a German Shepard. The German Shepard pushed her to the ground and proceeded to jump up and down with her front legs on the stomach on my RC causing intestinal damage so the full weight of a male GSD onto a 6 month RC. No bites (To my dog, the same German Shepard did also bite and kill my friends Labrador at the same time though) so I know all about damage a dog can cause both with and without teeth


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

stuaz said:


> When my rough collie was a pup, she was attacked by a German Shepard. The German Shepard pushed her to the ground and proceeded to jump up and down with her front legs on the stomach on my RC causing intestinal damage so the full weight of a male GSD onto a 6 month RC. No bites (To my dog, the same German Shepard did also bite and kill my friends Labrador at the same time though) so I know all about damage a dog can cause both with and without teeth


Sorry to have to "like" this post Stuaz, but I wanted to acknowledge it (I miss the "thank you" button). What a horrible experience for you, your friend and both your dogs - evidence, as you say, of the injuries that can be caused even without a bite.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Blitz said:


> This is a very sensible post. If the majority of people want their dogs to meet and greet then if you don't or can't because of your or your dog's temperament then it is not anyone else's problem, you just have to keep away from that area. It seems the majority of dog owners are sociable as are their dogs. Having just had a holiday where there were dog walkers I found it very relaxing that most people were happy to let dogs have a sniff - only met one out of control dog and that was not serious.


The problem is though, that while I avoided these known areas with Rupert (as you say, my problem not every other dog owners) we still had to contend with the many off leash and out of control dogs in the street and other on leash areas. It really isn't as simple as avoiding areas where people have off leash dogs and expect them to be able to approach others in some places  In Ireland I didn't even dare leave the house with Rupe in daylight hours because you could guarantee we'd encounter several off leash dogs in a 5 minute walk around the block. To avoid encounters I had to walk him literally in the middle of the night.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> The problem is though, that while I avoided these known areas with Rupert (as you say, my problem not every other dog owners) we still had to contend with the many off leash and out of control dogs in the street and other on leash areas. It really isn't as simple as avoiding areas where people have off leash dogs and expect them to be able to approach others in some places  In Ireland I didn't even dare leave the house with Rupe in daylight hours because you could guarantee we'd encounter several off leash dogs in a 5 minute walk around the block. To avoid encounters I had to walk him literally in the middle of the night.


I went to an area today that is completely on leash only, there are signs stating this on every entrance. In total we had 4 off leash dogs run up to us in the space of 30 mins 

Luckily I had my clients dog with me and not Thai...it would be a lovely place to walk Thai if it wasn't for people's lack of consideration for others .


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> This is a very sensible post. If the majority of people want their dogs to meet and greet then if you don't or can't because of your or your dog's temperament then it is not anyone else's problem, you just have to keep away from that area. It seems the majority of dog owners are sociable as are their dogs. Having just had a holiday where there were dog walkers I found it very relaxing that most people were happy to let dogs have a sniff - only met one out of control dog and that was not serious.


A few days ago you disapproved of dogs going to the toilet on pavements and today parks I just shouldn't walk her where there's rude off lead dogs. I don't know where exactly you expect me to walk my dog as unfortunately I don't have the privilege of being able to walk her anywhere else. It's either a pavement or a park. In a perfect world I would love to be able to whisk her off to the middle of nowhere and allow her to walk in peace without being mobbed by out of control dogs or to crap in long grass where it doesn't offend people but unfortunately for me and many other people, that's not always an option.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> I went to an area today that is completely on leash only, there are signs stating this on every entrance. In total we had 4 off leash dogs run up to us in the space of 30 mins
> 
> Luckily I had my clients dog with me and not Thai...it would be a lovely place to walk Thai if it wasn't for people's lack of consideration for others .


Yup  I gave up on on leash areas with Rupert. There was one in Ireland right opposite the larger off leash area (both fenced and a road between them) so I figured we'd be safe on the on leash one. Nope. There were always off leash dogs there too. Same with the park here, it's on leash only and there were always off leash dogs there. It's not like there's any shortage of off leash areas here either! We've got some absolutely fantastic off leash walks practically on our doorstep so there's no excuse at all.

And yeah, I really do get annoyed at off leash dogs approaching in places where dogs should be on lead even though Spen is friendly. It's just a complete lack of consideration for everyone else imo and the sort of thing that gets dogs banned from places completely.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Nettles said:


> A few days ago you disapproved of dogs going to the toilet on pavements and today parks I just shouldn't walk her where there's rude off lead dogs. I don't know where exactly you expect me to walk my dog as unfortunately I don't have the privilege of being able to walk her anywhere else. It's either a pavement or a park. In a perfect world I would love to be able to whisk her off to the middle of nowhere and allow her to walk in peace without being mobbed by out of control dogs or to crap in long grass where it doesn't offend people but unfortunately for me and many other people, that's not always an option.


that is not what I said. If you live in an area where the majority of dogs and owners are sociable and want to mix then it is YOUR problem not theirs if you do not want to. Nothing to do with being mobbed by out of control dogs - that is a totally different story, I was replying to someone who was saying dogs in her park sniffed each other and did not cause a problem.


----------



## icklemunch (May 4, 2015)

lostbear said:


> Sorry to have to "like" this post Stuaz, but I wanted to acknowledge it (I miss the "thank you" button). What a horrible experience for you, your friend and both your dogs - evidence, as you say, of the injuries that can be caused even without a bite.


Oh no that is absolutely awful! What happened to the German Shepherd?


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

IncaThePup said:


> You keep saying the Mal was 'under control'...killing another dog is not what I call 'under control'!
> 
> I agree the JRT wasn't under control and the old person shouldn't have had it off-lead if it didn't have a good recall, but what if it had been a small child that had run up the dog and tried to hug it and the dog bit the child cos it grabbed it? You know the dog is going to get the blame even if its the child that caused the reaction.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Blitz said:


> that is not what I said. If you live in an area where the majority of dogs and owners are sociable and want to mix then it is YOUR problem not theirs if you do not want to. Nothing to do with being mobbed by out of control dogs - that is a totally different story, I was replying to someone who was saying dogs in her park sniffed each other and did not cause a problem.


Have to say, the dogs we encounter in this particular area aren't usually the sort to bomb over from a great distance and dance on your dogs head. For the most part they're polite in their approach, have a sniff and go about their business. Which I'm fine with to be honest. The only time I have an issue with it is when the dog has a pop at mine and the owner goes "oh he's funny with other dogs". Well don't let it fecking approach them then! Or when the dog is ill mannered, Spen gives an appropriate correction and is then labelled vicious for it.

I mostly avoid fields and off leash parks as that's where I find most of the problem dogs are taken. Problem as in bomb across to a dog the other side of the field and dance on its head refusing to take no for an answer types, not usually aggressive types. I don't like them, my dog doesn't like them, we avoid them wherever possible.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> that is not what I said. If you live in an area where the majority of dogs and owners are sociable and want to mix then it is YOUR problem not theirs if you do not want to. Nothing to do with being mobbed by out of control dogs - that is a totally different story, I was replying to someone who was saying dogs in her park sniffed each other and did not cause a problem.


It's not sociable dogs that usually approach though, dogs with any sort of social skills take one look at Brock throwing off all sorts of body language and go... Woah, no, you're alright thanks.

It's overfriendly out of control ones or ones who fancy a bit of a fight that come running over.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

This is the sort of place I'm usually walking Spen and where I say I expect dogs to come and have a sniff as they pass. As you can see, narrow paths, nowhere to go to create space for an aggressive/fearful dog. The vast majority of the routes we walk are like that, there's the occasional field but it's mostly narrow paths like in this pic.


I don't think it's ideal that dogs are allowed to just approach without a thought that the dog they're approaching may be aggressive/fearful/elderly/whatever but I accept that in this particular area it happens. In another particular area close by it's not the norm at all, most dogs are leashed/called to heel to pass others. The two areas are perhaps a 5 minute walk from each other yet there's a massive difference in expectations.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> This is the sort of place I'm usually walking Spen and where I say I expect dogs to come and have a sniff as they pass. As you can see, narrow paths, nowhere to go to create space for an aggressive/fearful dog. The vast majority of the routes we walk are like that, there's the occasional field but it's mostly narrow paths like in this pic.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's ideal that dogs are allowed to just approach without a thought that the dog they're approaching may be aggressive/fearful/elderly/whatever but I accept that in this particular area it happens. In another particular area close by it's not the norm at all, most dogs are leashed/called to heel to pass others. The two areas are perhaps a 5 minute walk from each other yet there's a massive difference in expectations.


I wouldn't walk there... In fact I live near a canal, I never go near it because the paths aren't wide enough...well I suppose I could jump in to avoid people, lol


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

tabulahrasa said:


> I wouldn't walk there... In fact I live near a canal, I never go near it because the paths aren't wide enough...well I suppose I could jump in to avoid people, lol


Lol, I was the same with Rupert, he never set foot in that area due to the narrow paths. Just wasn't worth it. It's not so bad with Spen who'll go out of his way to avoid conflict with an iffy dog and happily meets and greets friendly ones. And once we get to the river and his tennis ball is being thrown he's not overly interested anyway.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Blitz said:


> that is not what I said. If you live in an area where the majority of dogs and owners are sociable and want to mix then it is YOUR problem not theirs if you do not want to. Nothing to do with being mobbed by out of control dogs - that is a totally different story, I was replying to someone who was saying dogs in her park sniffed each other and did not cause a problem.


My apologies, I must have misunderstood when you said "*if you don't or can't because of your or your dog's temperament then it is not anyone else's problem, you just have to keep away from that area"*


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

"Obviously, none of us were there at this particular incident but, if the Malamute was running alongside a bike, then the owner wasn't allowing him to mingle with other dogs, so if the Jack Russell has run after the Mal or even up to it, blame can't be apportioned to the owner of the Mal."

Going to mildly disagree - if you blast past other dogs with a dog and bicycle a few are going to chase. It's in their nature. It's ridiculous to expect every dog to be proofed against every completely random exciting event. It's like hurling a ball in a group of dogs and being miffed another dog gives chase. Or walking up to a dog on horseback and taking off at a flat gallop.The other obvious thing is you come up on people fast - they have less time to avoid you. I remain miffed at the bloke on a bike with two weims - thundering around a blind bend - the lodger shied out of the way of one of his dogs who detoured for a highspeed "Oy you" and damn near went under the wheels of the bike. Didn't even slow down.

If your dog deals with annoyance/ space invasion/ rudness etc with a death sentence then a muzzle is not an unreasonable requirement. 

I've no idea who did what to whom in this incident. I suspect it falls under bad luck/ shit happens - though having happened I imagine the mal owner should probably take steps to avoid a repeat.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Sosha said:


> "Obviously, none of us were there at this particular incident but, if the Malamute was running alongside a bike, then the owner wasn't allowing him to mingle with other dogs, so if the Jack Russell has run after the Mal or even up to it, blame can't be apportioned to the owner of the Mal."
> 
> Going to mildly disagree - if you blast past other dogs with a dog and bicycle a few are going to chase. It's in their nature. It's ridiculous to expect every dog to be proofed against every completely random exciting event. It's like hurling a ball in a group of dogs and being miffed another dog gives chase. Or walking up to a dog on horseback and taking off at a flat gallop.The other obvious thing is you come up on people fast - they have less time to avoid you. I remain miffed at the bloke on a bike with two weims - thundering around a blind bend - the lodger shied out of the way of one of his dogs who detoured for a highspeed "Oy you" and damn near went under the wheels of the bike. Didn't even slow down.
> 
> ...


FWIW Most people (I say most because as always there will be a few idiots) that bikejour or scooter with their dogs will not "blast past" other dogs. Instead we slow down and pass respectfully.

If someones dog runs over to chase a dog working in the distance, well that is a training issue for the dog that ran over IMO.

But either way, again we don't know what actually happened, I just thought I'd put that in there.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Well what would you have done if someone attacked you, would you just stand there or fight back

Dillon was on his lead when he was attacked by a small Staffy, which came from nowhere and attacked from the back grabbing Dillons back leg lucky Dillon bit was a wimp and didn't fight back, but if he had a doubt I'd have been able to hold him.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sosha said:


> "Obviously, none of us were there at this particular incident but, if the Malamute was running alongside a bike, then the owner wasn't allowing him to mingle with other dogs, so if the Jack Russell has run after the Mal or even up to it, blame can't be apportioned to the owner of the Mal."
> 
> Going to mildly disagree - if you blast past other dogs with a dog and bicycle a few are going to chase. It's in their nature. It's ridiculous to expect every dog to be proofed against every completely random exciting event. It's like hurling a ball in a group of dogs and being miffed another dog gives chase. Or walking up to a dog on horseback and taking off at a flat gallop.The other obvious thing is you come up on people fast - they have less time to avoid you. I remain miffed at the bloke on a bike with two weims - thundering around a blind bend - the lodger shied out of the way of one of his dogs who detoured for a highspeed "Oy you" and damn near went under the wheels of the bike. Didn't even slow down.
> 
> ...


How should the Mal owner take steps to avoid a repeat?

If he chooses to ride his bike, with his dog alongside, on a lead, how can he control offlead dogs and their behaviour?

He has every right to ride his bike with his dog running beside him. How is it his responsibility to avoid a situation where certain dogs may chase after him?

My Jack Russell would have chased bikes when she was younger. When I spotted a cyclist coming towards us, I used to get hold of her or put her onlead.

The owner of a dog which likes to chase cyclists has the responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. It's not the cyclist's problem.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sosha said:


> I've no idea who did what to whom in this incident. I suspect it falls under bad luck/ shit happens - though having happened* I imagine the mal owner should probably take steps to avoid a repeat*.


Agree - but why should otherwise sound dogs have to wear a muzzle on the off-chance that an annoying dog darts up to them?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> Yup  I gave up on on leash areas with Rupert. There was one in Ireland right opposite the larger off leash area (both fenced and a road between them) so I figured we'd be safe on the on leash one. Nope. There were always off leash dogs there too. Same with the park here, it's on leash only and there were always off leash dogs there. It's not like there's any shortage of off leash areas here either! We've got some absolutely fantastic off leash walks practically on our doorstep so there's no excuse at all.
> 
> And yeah, I really do get annoyed at off leash dogs approaching in places where dogs should be on lead even though Spen is friendly. It's just a complete lack of consideration for everyone else imo and the sort of thing that gets dogs banned from places completely.


At our local country park, there are acres and acres of open off leash areas. There are 2 relatively small (in comparison) areas where dogs are required to be on leash. One is around the visitor centre and car park - obvious. The other is the enclosure where goats are grazing. In both areas the signs are ignored and loose dogs create a nuisance and sometimes danger around the visitor centre and car park. In the livestock field, loose dogs have chased, injured and killed several of the livestock! Even with large, clear signs explaining what has happened, a minority still think *their* dog is the exception 

There are just some people who refuse to follow the rules, regardless of why they are there. Totally selfish.

The only people that I encounter who object to being asked to recall and leash their dogs temporarily so that my on lead dog can proceed unmolested are those who usually *can't*. *(*A smaller number can but won't :Sour) Some people go out of their way to be awkward IME and hate to think that anyone is telling them how to behave no matter how valid.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Sweety said:


> How should the Mal owner take steps to avoid a repeat?
> 
> If he chooses to ride his bike, with his dog alongside, on a lead, how can he control offlead dogs and their behaviour?
> 
> ...


He doesn't need to control other dogs - if his dog's going to kill any furry that invades his space while running alongside a bike, I'd suggest a muzzle. You're more likely to attract the attention of anything 4 legged you come up on suddenly and unexpectedly in that situation - I don't scooter or bikejor but I do cycle with the mutt sometimes & I get off and walk if I come up on another dog . I've still managed to pick up the odd curious dog but other than the wanting a hump lab it's not been a problem. And the wanting a hump lab suffered no damage.

Greyhounds run muzzled/ terrier's race muzzled.

Nah - sod it. You should just do what you want in you're own little bubble - if you manage to spook a dog it probably needs taking out of the gene pool anyway.

For all I know the jrt launched a frenzied attack and was finally repelled in which case nowt to be done. But if it's the greyhound unexpected darting cat moment or a death to all infidels then I stand by the muzzle.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sosha said:


> He doesn't need to control other dogs - if his dog's going to kill any furry that invades his space while running alongside a bike, I'd suggest a muzzle. You're more likely to attract the attention of anything 4 legged you come up on suddenly and unexpectedly in that situation - I don't scooter or bikejor but I do cycle with the mutt sometimes & I get off and walk if I come up on another dog . I've still managed to pick up the odd curious dog but other than the wanting a hump lab it's not been a problem. And the wanting a hump lab suffered no damage.
> 
> Greyhounds run muzzled/ terrier's race muzzled.
> 
> Nah - sod it. You should just do what you want in you're own little bubble - if you manage to spook a dog it probably needs taking out of the gene pool anyway.


You should just do what you want in your own little bubble?

I take it you mean it's okay to let your dog run after a cyclist with a dog alongside?

Who said this Mal would kill anything that invades his space? None of us know what happened. The Jack Russell could have instigated this whole situation. We don't know.

My Rosie can be reactive to other dogs. She never approaches other dogs, she doesn't want to and she wouldn't be allowed to, but if another dog runs at her and makes her feel crowded, she will see them off.

I have no intention of muzzling her. She would never bother another dog, why should she have to wear a muzzle to make allowances for dog owners who just want to let their dogs 'do their own thing'?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I was under the impression that dogs should only be off leash in public areas if they have been trained to stop or recall - i.e. were under the control of the owner.

I come across very few dogs who actually do that, on command. Most of them ignore completely and a few will stop if I shoo them, and then eventually trot away back to their owner, or the owner eventually comes and gets them. These owners often apologise and come out with exactly the same excuse they used last time.

I have no objection to people letting their dogs off if they can control them, but I'm not doing anything wrong by walking in a public area with my dog on a lead! A lot of people with off lead dogs begrudge me that!

With the best will in the world, it's not possible to avoid every other dog, every day - I do my best! 

This excerpt is from the GovUK website:

QUOTE
*Out of control*
Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
injures someone
* makes someone worried that it might injure them*

A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply: 
it attacks someone's animal
* the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal*

UNQUOTE

So, how many of us have *never* experienced any one of those 4 possibilities? I suspect the 2 in bold happen quite a lot as reading the intentions of a strange dog is not always easy for the average dog owner.

The other morning when I took an obvious detour to avoid a dog and it's owner and put 300 feet between us could have been because *I* was scared of strange dogs. It didn't matter why, because the owner couldn't recall his dog, whatever my reasons for avoidance


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Sosha said:


> He doesn't need to control other dogs - if his dog's going to kill any furry that invades his space while running alongside a bike, I'd suggest a muzzle. You're more likely to attract the attention of anything 4 legged you come up on suddenly and unexpectedly in that situation - I don't scooter or bikejor but I do cycle with the mutt sometimes & I get off and walk if I come up on another dog . I've still managed to pick up the odd curious dog but other than the wanting a hump lab it's not been a problem. And the wanting a hump lab suffered no damage.
> 
> Greyhounds run muzzled/ terrier's race muzzled.
> 
> ...


Well I'd class it as pretty irresponsible to not muzzle a dog after it's killed another dog...but realistically you wouldn't know that was going to happen until it did.

The mal may have been unhappy with other dogs before that to a lesser extent or it may have never shown an issue before, either way most people don't just routinely muzzle their dog.

And I still think it's your (generic your) job to keep your dog away from cyclists, whether they have a dog with them or not.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Sweety said:


> My Rosie can be reactive to other dogs. She never approaches other dogs, she doesn't want to and she wouldn't be allowed to, but if another dog runs at her and makes her feel crowded, she will see them off.
> 
> I have no intention of muzzling her. She would never bother another dog, why should she have to wear a muzzle to make allowances for dog owners who just want to let their dogs 'do their own thing'?


So you're walking Rosie in a park - a kid some distance away drops their lead and their overexcited puppy comes bounding over. Rosie kills it. Would you muzzle then?

Obviously I don't image Rosie would do this, nor do I imagine there's any point at all in muzzling Rosie.

One of the family's dogs (long gone) wouldn't be out with me on a bicycle without a muzzle. Simply because I have less control/ time to react on a bike and no desire to see him shred another dog that got in his face.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Urrghh do you know I wonder why some people have dogs as they seem to think they should be like stuffed toys!

Again thinking the law doesn't involve them!

Seemingly its perfectly fine you let your dog run about and do what it wants because its friendly if it annoys or aggravates someone else and their dog tough that's their problem not yours  then its the whole world's problem when something goes wrong, but never the person who let's their dog approach who ever they want....


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Sosha said:


> So you're walking Rosie in a park - a kid some distance away drops their lead and their overexcited puppy comes bounding over. Rosie kills it. Would you muzzle then?
> 
> Obviously I don't image Rosie would do this, nor do I imagine there's any point at all in muzzling Rosie.
> 
> One of the family's dogs (long gone) wouldn't be out with me on a bicycle without a muzzle. Simply because I have less control/ time to react on a bike and no desire to see him shred another dog that got in his face.


I take full responsibility for Rosie. I make sure Rosie never bothers another dog, on or offlead.

I won't take responsibility for somebody else's dog.

I won't muzzle Rosie, which would make her miserable, just in case some casual dog owner thinks it's okay for his dog to tear up to her. Rosie does warn first, she air snaps, but if a dog is being particularly rude and won't be told, she bites.

Fair enough in my book. If someone doesn't want Rosie to bite their dog, then they can keep it away from her.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Sosha said:


> if his dog's going to kill any furry that invades his space while running alongside a bike, I'd suggest a muzzle.


As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have a dog who has killed a skunk while trotting along side me, never broke stride. Same dog dispatched a rabbit that decided trying to run across the path right under his nose was a good idea. 
I'm not going to muzzle him, I see absolutely no need. He is perfectly fine around small dogs, as long as they're not rude, and even rude dogs get plenty of fair warning before he resorts to teeth.
He even managed not to kill the cat the other day when the cat stuck her whole head in the bowl the dog was eating out of. He just flattened her to with his muzzle and held her there until I retrieved her. She was wholly unharmed, and tried to get away from me and go stick her head back in the bowl 

IOW, it's a case by case thing. A well adjusted dog with good bite inhibition and self-control doesn't need to be muzzled just because he will also act like a normal predator in certain situations.
A flighty, unpredictable dog with questionable bite inhibition and poor self-control probably should be very carefully managed, which may include a muzzle.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

lostbear said:


> Agree - but why should otherwise sound dogs have to wear a muzzle on the off-chance that an annoying dog darts up to them?


Because they have shown they are not sound in that situation.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

In o


Sosha said:


> So you're walking Rosie in a park - a kid some distance away drops their lead and their overexcited puppy comes bounding over. Rosie kills it. Would you muzzle then?
> 
> Obviously I don't image Rosie would do this, nor do I imagine there's any point at all in muzzling Rosie.
> 
> One of the family's dogs (long gone) wouldn't be out with me on a bicycle without a muzzle. Simply because I have less control/ time to react on a bike and no desire to see him shred another dog that got in his face.


Is this child in the park alone with his pup or are the Parents in attendance? Assuming they are, why don't they take responsibility for their child and their pup?

See, this is what really irritates me, this belief some dog owners have that their dog should be able to racket round, running up to other dogs as they choose, and the owners of those dogs have a duty to ensure their dog doesn't get hurt.

So, we all have to muzzle our, under control, dogs, so that theirs can do as they please.

A little like saying all drivers should drive at ten miles an hour to make sure boy racers driving at seventy miles an hour don't get hurt.

Your dog, your responsibility. That applies to everyone. I'm sick to death of hearing "He only wants to play" or "Don't worry, he doesn't bite". My bitch doesn't want to play and she does bite, if pushed.

Rosie bobbles along next to me, happy in her own World. Why should she be muzzled so that people who bring their dogs to the park and just let them go can tear up to her and get away with it?

I put a lot of energy into making sure Rosie doesn't bother anyone and she doesn't. I'm not going to penalise her with a muzzle so that others don't have to bother.

In other words, responsible dog owners have to look out for those dogs belonging to irresponsible owners, and shackle their own dogs so that those belonging to the "He only wants to play" brigade don't get hurt.

Not in my world.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

A skunk's a skunk. A dog's a dog.


Sweety said:


> I take full responsibility for Rosie. I make sure Rosie never bothers another dog, on or offlead.
> 
> I won't take responsibility for somebody else's dog.
> 
> ...


As I said - I see no reason to muzzle Rosie. If however she'd proceeded to disembowel some chancer as a first port of call, I'd say walking without a muzzle in a dog dense area would be wildly irresponsible. No one's perfect all the time. Likewise if I had a greyhound that couldn't tell the difference between small dog and rabbit - muzzle.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Sosha said:


> So you're walking Rosie in a park - a kid some distance away drops their lead and their overexcited puppy comes bounding over. Rosie kills it. Would you muzzle then?


A dog who would kill a puppy is not a sound dog. Sorry... Even reactive dogs tend to give puppies a pass.

I think we're missing a few things here about temperament.
A dog can have perfectly sound, stable temperament and still be an efficient killer of prey.
And dogs can tell the difference between a puppy and a rabbit.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sosha said:


> A skunk's a skunk. A dog's a dog.
> 
> As I said - I see no reason to muzzle Rosie. If however she'd proceeded to disembowel some chancer as a first port of call, I'd say walking without a muzzle in a dog dense area would be wildly irresponsible. No one's perfect all the time. Likewise if I had a greyhound that couldn't tell the difference between small dog and rabbit - muzzle.


Ahhh I see your logic!! Those who are responsible dog owners should make all the sacrifices for their dogs well being just so irresponsible owners who ignore the law should be able to carry on enjoying letting their dogs run riot! And if you have a large breed you should be doubley responsible for everyone else's dog, and allow them no freedom so the feckless can let their dogs run out of control in public places! Got it! Sound advice!


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

To be fair, I tend to be extra careful with my two because they are big.
I am cognizant that some people/dogs may find a dog like a great dane more frightening than a lab so I’m careful that my dogs never approach anyone uninvited and I give folks plenty of space when we’re out and about.
I’m careful that they don’t get too boisterous around people who don’t know them or aren’t comfortable with that level of activity.
Generally I feel like I go out of my way to be a good ambassador to large and XL breeds. My two are usually the most well-behaved, pleasant, well-trained dogs Joe Public gets to meet. Yet somehow it still feels like that’s not enough, like I should apologize for their size. 
I suppose I should treat my 12 year old human child differently too since he towers a good foot or more over his peers and doesn’t know where his limbs are half the time.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sweety said:


> In o
> 
> Is this child in the park alone with his pup or are the Parents in attendance? Assuming they are, why don't they take responsibility for their child and their pup?
> 
> ...


I make no judgement on whether or not she should wear a muzzle, however, a few things jump out at me. Firstly, why is wearing a muzzle penalising her? A dog can be trained to accept a muzzle without it worrying them at all and have no sense of it being a penalty - that is a human response, but not a canine one.

Secondly, it's not like saying all drivers should drive at ten miles an hour to make sure boy racers driving at seventy miles an hour don't get hurt. But, you could use the analogy of driving at 30mph in a built up area (and 20mph in some especially near schools) so being careful and cautious where the environment requires it, but allowing 70mph on a motorway where there should be no pedestrians.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> To be fair, I tend to be extra careful with my two because they are big.
> I am cognizant that some people/dogs may find a dog like a great dane more frightening than a lab so I'm careful that my dogs never approach anyone uninvited and I give folks plenty of space when we're out and about.
> I'm careful that they don't get too boisterous around people who don't know them or aren't comfortable with that level of activity.
> Generally I feel like I go out of my way to be a good ambassador to large and XL breeds. My two are usually the most well-behaved, pleasant, well-trained dogs Joe Public gets to meet. Yet somehow it still feels like that's not enough, like I should apologize for their size.
> I suppose I should treat my 12 year old human child differently too since he towers a good foot or more over his peers and doesn't know where his limbs are half the time.


Exactly!! I'd have the Police at my door if I took Cian to a high traffic dog area and let him off to run riot! My shouts of "he's friendly" and "he just wants to play" would be greatly received I'm sure!

I do enough already with my well trained friendly dogs, who cause no bother to others and are put on lead when ever we see other dogs! Still not enough for some seemingly they should be kept indoors or walked in the wilds! Respect is not a two way street for some dog owners!


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Ahhh I see your logic!! Those who are responsible dog owners should make all the sacrifices for their dogs well being just so irresponsible owners who ignore the law should be able to carry on enjoying letting their dogs run riot! And if you have a large breed you should be doubley responsible for everyone else's dog, and allow them no freedom so the feckless can let their dogs run out of control in public places! Got it! Sound advice!


No. My point is if you have a dog that will kill other dogs with little provocation or due to predatory drift, then you should take appropriate precautions.If you're a responsible dog owner that is.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Sosha said:


> No. My point is if you have a dog that will kill other dogs with little provocation or due to predatory drift, then you should take appropriate precautions.If you're a responsible dog owner that is.


I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, likewise, if you have a small dog who's likely to get him/herself in to trouble, you should take precautions too.

I don't even have small dogs, and I don't depend on other's knowledge of their dogs, I keep mine safe by not allowing them to interact with dogs I don't know.

There is always going to be that owner who doesn't know their dog, there is always going to be that first time incident, it's up to us to protect our dogs, end of.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sosha said:


> No. My point is if you have a dog that will kill other dogs with little provocation or due to predatory drift, then you should take appropriate precautions.If you're a responsible dog owner that is.


If you have a small dog you should the take appropriate precautions it doesn't approach other dogs that could cause it harm either intentionally or accidentally, if you are a responsible dog owner that is! I have both small and large neither are allowed to approach strange dogs off lead! You are responsible for your own dog no matter what the size or drive!


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Meezey said:


> If you have a small dog you should the take appropriate precautions, if you are a responsible dog owner that is! I have both small and large neither are allowed to approach strange dogs off lead!


 My mistake - I thought only the pope was infallible. I tend to expect people to make the odd mistake without turning green and gaining 100lb.

Today some gormless woman decided to cross the road right at me with her two poms kicking off big time came forward fast on their extending leads. they got to about a meter away. The Lodger saw them, did a "Pfft whatever" and we continued on our way - complete non incident. The long gone aunt's dog would have done his best to kill the pair of them. Had he been on the bike there'd be one or two less gobby Pom's in the world and I'd have gravel rash. Except there wouldn't be - there'd be two scared rigid poms & a woman who'd be more careful in future because Charles Bronson would be muzzled. I'd still have gravel rash but the world is imperfect.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Sweety said:


> In o
> 
> Is this child in the park alone with his pup or are the Parents in attendance? Assuming they are, why don't they take responsibility for their child and their pup?
> 
> ...


I can't agree more with this!!! Why punish your well trained dog because someone else hasn't bothered their arse to train theirs.

I don't have an aggressive dog, I have a 5 month old pup that was terrified every single time an irresponsible owner allowed their "just wants to play" dog to run full speed at her, sniff her, jump on her etc. She was so afraid, she peed all over herself on numerous occasions. After advice from some people on here, I started walking her on pavements where the likelihood of meeting "just wants to play" dogs was much less.

I have also paid a small fortune taking her to numerous puppy classes, puppy parties and dog events where she can appropriately and comfortably meet other dogs, give her positive experiences and build her confidence around them.

None of that would have been needed if "just wants to play" dogs were under control and trained not to approach other dogs unless permitted by BOTH owners.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

ouesi said:


> To be fair, I tend to be extra careful with my two because they are big.
> I am cognizant that some people/dogs may find a dog like a great dane more frightening than a lab so I'm careful that my dogs never approach anyone uninvited and I give folks plenty of space when we're out and about.
> I'm careful that they don't get too boisterous around people who don't know them or aren't comfortable with that level of activity.
> Generally I feel like I go out of my way to be a good ambassador to large and XL breeds. My two are usually the most well-behaved, pleasant, well-trained dogs Joe Public gets to meet. Yet somehow it still feels like that's not enough, like I should apologize for their size.
> I suppose I should treat my 12 year old human child differently too since he towers a good foot or more over his peers and doesn't know where his limbs are half the time.


Perhaps your extremely well behaved dogs should be muzzled at all times, especially since they're big and can be seen by other dogs from further away. It doesn't matter that they're good natured.. muzzle them just in case. You should also muzzle your son, just in case he mistakes a child for a sandwich. Better yet, perhaps you could keep them all indoors so other people don't have to train their dogs to act appropriately around XL dogs that could accidentally injure them..


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

TBH..... if it meant keeping my Diz safe, I would make the sacrifices to her freedom an mine, even if it did mean other twunts got away with it. 

Sometimes you have to pick you battles, a muzzle isn't the end of the world if introduced correctly and I'd rather walk with the peace of mind that if anything happened, we are covered. 

Accidents will always happen, always, animals are animals.... am sure far far fewer dogs kill one another than human do!


----------



## astro2011 (Dec 13, 2011)

For all we know the Malamute bit in defence. Im sure the JRT may be friendly, but from experience with my malamute he doesn't take kindly to rude behaviour. If the JRT was very social able I take that as he runs up to every dog and the owner gives the "he's friendly" response? This response is the most annoying response EVER!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

-----------


Sosha said:


> My mistake - I thought only the pope was infallible. I tend to expect people to make the odd mistake without turning green and gaining 100lb.
> 
> Today some gormless woman decided to cross the road right at me with her two poms kicking off big time came forward fast on their extending leads. they got to about a meter away. The Lodger saw them, did a "Pfft whatever" and we continued on our way - complete non incident. The long gone aunt's dog would have done his best to kill the pair of them. Had he been on the bike there'd be one or two less gobby Pom's in the world and I'd have gravel rash. Except there wouldn't be - there'd be two scared rigid poms & a woman who'd be more careful in future because Charles Bronson would be muzzled. I'd still have gravel rash but the world is imperfect.


So did you muzzle your aunts dog from day one?
There is always a first time for everything...I think it is a little hypicritical to made a snide jab about how well behaved Ouesi's dogs are, to then go on to "Well I would never make a mistake, because of "example of one dog that wasn't even mine"

I hope that your dogs never make a mistake and an unfortunate chain of events happen...With the size difference this could all have come from one warning bite that was in the wrong place for the unfortunate littley...

You don't even know if this Mal has even show any malice before of after the incident, but hey lets just muzzle all dogs over a certain size just to be sure huh


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> I make no judgement on whether or not she should wear a muzzle, however, a few things jump out at me. Firstly, why is wearing a muzzle penalising her? A dog can be trained to accept a muzzle without it worrying them at all and have no sense of it being a penalty - that is a human response, but not a canine one.
> 
> Secondly, it's not like saying all drivers should drive at ten miles an hour to make sure boy racers driving at seventy miles an hour don't get hurt. But, you could use the analogy of driving at 30mph in a built up area (and 20mph in some especially near schools) so being careful and cautious where the environment requires it, but allowing 70mph on a motorway where there should be no pedestrians.


I daresay I could train Rosie to wear a muzzle, but she doesn't need one.

I've already put a lot of time and effort into training her to ignore other dogs. Even when another dog runs up to her, she will carry on walking and try to leave it behind. If that doesn't work and the dog gets pushy, she will snap.

In my opinion, those who allow their dogs to run loose and out of control, approaching other dogs as they see fit, are taking a risk that their dog could get hurt. It's not my job to protect their dog when they don't want the trouble of doing so themselves.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Personally I think there's a hell of a difference between a dog who'll snap at or give an inhibited bite to a rude dog or a dog who just approaches and a dog who'll inflict serious injury or kill the other dog for it. There's no way I'm going to muzzle Spen in case he has a scuffle with a rude dog. Rupert on the other hand was muzzled as he went all out to cause harm. And while I don't agree that dogs should be running up to others willy nilly the fact is they do. And having twice been in a situation where my dog seriously injured one who did approach (first time was the first time he'd ever made contact, second time he was muzzled, muzzles don't prevent all injury) I can honestly say I'd take every precaution I could to prevent repeats.

Even if all dogs were generally kept under control there are the genuine accidents. I've had them. I'm sure others have. They happen and I don't think a dog deserves to be mutilated or killed because of either an accident or its owners ineptitude.


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

cabot said:


> An elderly friend of mine was out walking his dog when it was savaged to death by an Alaskan Malamute dog. The owner was apologetic, but the distraught elderly man had to carry the body of his beloved pet home covered in blood. What rights does he have as only by chance we have found out that the malamute owner happens to stay no more than 300m away. Police were called but took no action as it was discovered that the malamute was on a lead and the Jack Russell was not. The incident happened in a nearby park.


I'm so sorry for your friend and his poor JR, that is truly awful . I also feel for the Mal, who by the sounds of it, was acting in self defence. 
None of us know the complete story but it really shows the importance of training and during that training, having preventative measures in place (muzzle and lead). 
JR's are very confident dogs, their size is irrelevant, and one (or any dog) with an aggression problem should NOT be off lead...ever. They have extremely powerful jaws and I have witnessed one lock on to a Golden Retriever's neck and shake and hang off it with it's whole body weight. Luckily this incident didn't end in either dogs demise, but the Golden needed serious veterinary care for her savaged and torn neck.
If indeed this is how the JR attacked this time, had the Mal not fought back, it could of been the Mal that was killed for doing absolutely nothing wrong and the man being up on charges.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

There is one advantage of having one's dogs muzzled: when my standard poodles were younger they would grab and eat almost anything and, because they have very dodgy stomachs, would end up at the vet on a drip. So, until they learnt better, I muzzled them on walks. Boy, did other dog owners give us a wide berth! Perfect solution


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sosha said:


> My mistake - I thought only the pope was infallible. I tend to expect people to make the odd mistake without turning green and gaining 100lb.
> 
> Today some gormless woman decided to cross the road right at me with her two poms kicking off big time came forward fast on their extending leads. they got to about a meter away. The Lodger saw them, did a "Pfft whatever" and we continued on our way - complete non incident. The long gone aunt's dog would have done his best to kill the pair of them. Had he been on the bike there'd be one or two less gobby Pom's in the world and I'd have gravel rash. Except there wouldn't be - there'd be two scared rigid poms & a woman who'd be more careful in future because Charles Bronson would be muzzled. I'd still have gravel rash but the world is imperfect.


Here's a thing how about doing something about the person with the out of control poms? Oh that's right small dogs don't get treated the same way large dogs do! It's perfectly acceptable that they can act like that, but any larger then its their fault always irrespective of what happened!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> They happen and I don't think a dog deserves to be mutilated or killed because of either an accident or its owners ineptitude.


Don't think anyone has said that anywhere! Think it's more of the fact one rules for one and not the other! Why should one owner have to make all the sacrifices and pull out all the stops just so others who think the law doesn't apply to them can allow their dogs to run riot!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sosha said:


> No. My point is if you have a dog that will kill other dogs with little provocation or due to predatory drift, then you should take appropriate precautions.If you're a responsible dog owner that is.


This Mal could have never reacted to a dog in its life!

You also seem to be missing the point, one I'll placed and timed warning snap could kill, owners reaction could kill, shock could kill......

You can muzzle all the dogs you want still doesn't stop the irresponsible owners who think their dogs running wild is acceptable!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Meezey said:


> If you have a small dog you should the take appropriate precautions it doesn't approach other dogs that could cause it harm either intentionally or accidentally, if you are a responsible dog owner that is! I have both small and large neither are allowed to approach strange dogs off lead! You are responsible for your own dog no matter what the size or drive!


Agree.

If I had a dog that I could let off in public open spaces, then I would only do so if I was confident that his recall was reliable. I would not allow him to approach an on lead dog for his own safety apart from anything else. (Or loose dogs - willy nilly.)

IME there are many reasons why a dog would be on lead - not always aggression. However, even the most friendly dog could suddenly take exception to an approaching, loose dog. (It's strange though that most owners of loose dogs always assume that my dog must be aggressive or unfriendly because he IS on the lead. If so, why do they allow their loose dog to approach? That makes no sense to me :Meh

I have seen countless new owners over our local playing fields who have allowed their young, inexperienced dogs to just run up and join in with the mob that is usually over there. Most of them have then had problems with their dog just taking off as soon as they are unleashed, regardless if the owner wants them to or not and has great difficulty in getting their dog to come away and be re-leashed when they want to go home or on a different route. These dogs also become a nuisance to every on leash dog that enters the park because they have never been trained to look to their owner for permission. In fact, for most of these dogs their owner is irrelevant - and they only "recall" when they have either had enough themselves, or just happen to get close enough to the owner to be grabbed.

That is not "under control" IMO. And I don't think it can be under Dog Law either.

As for muzzling - my lurcher will have been muzzled in the greyhound rehoming centre so I'm sure he wouldn't mind wearing one, but I am not going to put him at a disadvantage out in the open given the number of loose, out of control dogs running around.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Isn't it all about risk assessment though? If you know you have a dog that reacts aggressively to incoming dogs then I do believe it should be muzzled whether its minding its own business and under control on its lead or not. I also don't think it has to have seriously damaged a dog before for the owner to have a pretty good idea of how the dog reacts to other dogs invading its space. I fully agree people should control their dogs of all sizes and not allow them to charge up to other dogs but personally I could not live with myself if my dog seriously injured or killed another dog or frightened a pup half to death when I knew that was a possibility. My last rottie Mabel was happy on her lead minding her own business but wanted to kill incoming rude dogs big or small so she was muzzled, the risk of her getting hold of a small dog or a puppy was too high to take as was walking her through a busy park or field full of dogs. We avoided those areas like the plague. Indie on the other hand has never shown any indication of wanting to fight or attack other dogs, in fact she usually runs away from them so I don't feel the need to muzzle her "just in case". 

We don't know and probably never will know whether the Mal owner in this case had reason to suspect her dog might have reacted in this way to another dog. If she did and chose to ignore it and took the risk of cycling with her dog through a busy park then she must be feeling terrible for making that decision in the same way if the owner of the JRT knew there was a risk of his dog chasing a bike or racing over to another dog with no hope of stopping it then he too must be feeling terrible as a simple lead could have prevented it and saved his dog's life.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Don't think anyone has said that anywhere! Think it's more of the fact one rules for one and not the other! Why should one owner have to make all the sacrifices and pull out all the stops just so others who think the law doesn't apply to them can allow their dogs to run riot!


For me it was never about what was "fair", it was about keeping everyone, my own dog included safe. No, it wasn't fair that I couldn't walk him in nice areas because of other peoples lack of control over their dogs. And it made me angry that we couldn't have a peaceful walk because of that lack of control and consideration. Every dog owner should take reasonable precautions imo, things like not letting their dog rush up to others as they please, leashing or calling to heel to pass on leash dogs, keeping them in sight (or at least being able to hear them nearby if the undergrowth is thick). But I do think if you own a dog who is a danger to others you should be taking more precautions than those with dogs who aren't. Regardless of size or breed of dog or whether it's fair that you have to do so while others just let their dogs run riot. I won't muzzle any dog "just in case" or for getting into a minor scuffle with rude dogs or because of it's breed to make others feel better. Just ones who I know are likely to hurt others, human or dog.

Something needs to change with the lack of control over dogs in general imo. All that's happening is dogs are being banned from more and more places because people can't or won't keep control of them and think rules don't apply to them. I actually think the "socialise, socialise, socialise" message has a lot to answer for when it comes to people letting their dogs run riot to be honest. And I think the sheer number of rude, obnoxious thugs allowed to run riot more than likely plays a big part in how many dogs these days do seem to have issues with others.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I have 2 dog friendly dogs, KT is reactive sometimes ( doesn't bat an eyelid at other dogs at shows) we don't walk in highly populated dog areas for that reason! Should I muzzle KT on the off chance an out of control dogs comes barrelling at us?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Meezey said:


> I have 2 dog friendly dogs, KT is reactive sometimes ( doesn't bat an eyelid at other dogs at shows) we don't walk in highly populated dog areas for that reason! Should I muzzle KT on the off chance a dog an out of control dogs comes barrelling at us?


If she's likely to tear them to pieces then yes imo. If not then no.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> If she's likely to tear them to pieces then yes imo. If not then no.


I think this is the crux of it for me, people are assuming this Mal did this to the JRT, it could have been an ill time snap, people getting involved doing more damage than the dog did hitting pulling etc ill timed snap has turned in to a savaging and Mal to to a high drive killer!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> There is one advantage of having one's dogs muzzled: when my standard poodles were younger they would grab and eat almost anything and, because they have very dodgy stomachs, would end up at the vet on a drip. So, until they learnt better, I muzzled them on walks. Boy, did other dog owners give us a wide berth! Perfect solution


Yes, but there are still too many owners of loose dogs, who see the muzzle and then think "oh, it's ok for my dog to go over because he/she can't get bitten" 

I was going to buy a large neon muzzle to hang on my waist to make people/loose dogs avoid me and Jack - but having seen so many muzzled dogs still being mugged by loose dogs decided it was a waste of money.


----------



## Guest (Aug 25, 2015)

Sarah1983 said:


> If she's likely to tear them to pieces then yes imo. If not then no.


Exactly, case by case basis. Reactivity in itself may not be a reason to muzzle. Prey drive in itself may not be a reason to muzzle. 
Not that being muzzled is such a bad thing, but a snap preceded by a fair warning is not reason to muzzle, even if the dog is a very big one.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Meezey said:


> I think this is the crux of it for me, people are assuming this Mal did this to the JRT, it could have been an ill time snap, people getting involved doing more damage than the dog did hitting pulling etc ill timed snap has turned in to a savaging and Mal to to a high drive killer!


Agree. We don't have details other than a mal killed a jrt. Anything could have happened.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Meezey said:


> I think this is the crux of it for me, people are assuming this Mal did this to the JRT, *it could have been an ill time snap*, people getting involved doing more damage than the dog did hitting pulling etc ill timed snap has turned in to a savaging and Mal to to a high drive killer!


But the man with the pitchfork & the flaming torch said the JRT 'had the skin torn off it', & as he was there, it must be fact


----------



## Muttly (Oct 1, 2014)

Perhaps we need more info...has the OP even posted again?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Lurcherlad said:


> IME there are many reasons why a dog would be on lead - not always aggression. However, even the most friendly dog could suddenly take exception to an approaching, loose dog. (It's strange though that most owners of loose dogs always assume that my dog must be aggressive or unfriendly because he IS on the lead. If so, why do they allow their loose dog to approach? That makes no sense to me :Meh


Exactly! Never got that one myself.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Muttly said:


> Perhaps we need more info...has the OP even posted again?


I think they posted 2 or 3 times, & then their friend, neighbour, alter ego or whatever joined the forum & posted a couple of times to back them up.

No real facts, no real details & neither of them were actually there so unless we hear from the JRT owner or the Mal owner it's all speculation, although both posters were keen to point out that the Mal owner was new to the area & so considered somewhat of an 'outsider'


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

For me, it's all about taking responsibility.

I used to have a Land Rover - the old type, with bull bars. Now, many people who drive 4x4s seem to think they can drive how they like, because if they have a prang they will not suffer any/much damage. However, when I drove my Landy I was far, far more careful than when driving an ordinary car, because I was so aware of the amount of damage I could do to others.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> For me, it's all about taking responsibility.
> 
> I used to have a Land Rover - the old type, with bull bars. Now, many people who drive 4x4s seem to think they can drive how they like, because if they have a prang they will not suffer any/much damage. However, when I drove my Landy I was far, far more careful than when driving an ordinary car, because I was so aware of the amount of damage I could do to others.


Most of us with large breed dogs already tend to be more careful, we are very aware of what our dogs could do and our responsible for our dogs!

To use your example would you stop driving your 4x4 just in case someone in a Micra had been using their phone while driving at speed drinking could smash in to you causing themselves serious injury, even though you had been driving far far more carefully than any other driver on the road even though you were in a 4 x 4 with bullbars?


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

BlaiseinHampshire said:


> For me, it's all about taking responsibility.
> 
> I used to have a Land Rover - the old type, with bull bars. Now, many people who drive 4x4s seem to think they can drive how they like, because if they have a prang they will not suffer any/much damage. However, when I drove my Landy I was far, far more careful than when driving an ordinary car, because I was so aware of the amount of damage I could do to others.


But it's not just large dog owners that need to take responsibility, I muzzle mine because he tries to bite other dogs, he'd also bite a person trying to intervene...I'd still muzzle him if he was a small dog, because small teeth still cause damage.

That shouldn't mean that other dogs can just run up to him, because they can still be injured by him and they're disrupting my walk and setting back my training - when I've gone out of my way not to disrupt their walk and made it very clear that their dog won't be welcomed, it shouldn't be a huge expectation that someone can recall their dog.

Not to mention what that 'friendly' dog learns about interactions when sometimes dogs they go to greet react by becoming a ball of fury.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> But the man with the pitchfork & the flaming torch said the JRT 'had the skin torn off it', & as he was there, it must be fact


Oddly though the OP knew the people and dogs involved and so it is JUST possible that they have more facts than you do.

I cannot believe this thread is still going and I am shocked by some of the posts by selfish owners.

In a perfect world everyone would be keeping their dog under control but this is not a perfect world and anyway I do not see why dogs should not be allowed to have contact with each other. Why are they not allowed to be dogs in so many posters minds yet it is obvious that the vast majority of the dog owning population are happy for their dogs to mix.
Whether it is right or not dogs of all sizes will be coming up to other dogs and if you have a dog that cannot tolerate that then surely you should do something about it. It is your dog that will end up with an asbo or being pts if it inflicts damage. It may not be fair but it is fact.
Maybe if everyone let their dogs meet and greet in a polite way from the start there would be a lot less aggressive dogs around. It is not natural for dogs to be so aggressive - why is it becoming more and more common.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Blitz said:


> h
> Maybe if everyone let their dogs meet and greet* in a polite way* from the start there would be a lot less aggressive dogs around. It is not natural for dogs to be so aggressive - why is it becoming more and more common.


Because so many non aggressive dogs aren't polite. We're lucky where I usually walk as most dogs do have reasonable social skills. But honestly, I've lost count of the number of dogs I've seen in parks and fields who just barrel up to other dogs and jump all over them, hump them, flatten them, square up to them etc. And these are deemed "friendly" behaviours by your average dog owner. They're not, they're incredibly rude. And terrifying to some dogs, hugely irritating to others. Spen is a happy, sociable dog who loves a meet and greet but he is extremely unimpressed by this sort of dog. And the owners don't like his reaction. Which is actually very appropriate, he tries to walk away and when that fails, as it almost invariably does with these dogs, he puts on his snarly face and shouts.

It seems that these sorts of dogs leave behind a trail of dogs who have learned that they either need to be frightened of other dogs or they need to take drastic measures to ensure they're not hassled. In the meantime, those of us who do have well adjusted, sociable dogs tend to completely avoid the places these dogs are usually walked as much as we possibly can so all they tend to get to interact with are other ill mannered thugs so they learn nothing. Or at least that's my take on it. But I'm afraid I won't be volunteering my dog to teach random dogs manners, it's just not worth the risk of him becoming reactive himself and unfair to force him to put up with them.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> Oddly though the OP knew the people and dogs involved and so it is JUST possible that they have more facts than you do.
> 
> I cannot believe this thread is still going and I am shocked by some of the posts by selfish owners.
> 
> ...


But dog aggression isn't the only reason dogs might not be able to mix with other dogs.

Before Brock was dog aggressive (and it's a huge factor in why his aggression is as bad as it is) while he was recovering from his elbow operation I had to do his ten minute walks at night then too because apparently, I don't want him mixing with other dogs because he's just had an operation isn't a good enough reason to recall dogs either.

It's nice if you have a healthy dog who likes to socialise to meet like minded dogs and let them mix a bit, but they're hardly suffering if one of the dogs they're passing isn't ok to do that for one reason or another.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Oddly though the OP knew the people and dogs involved and so it is JUST possible that they have more facts than you do.
> 
> I cannot believe this thread is still going and I am shocked by some of the posts by selfish owners.
> 
> ...


Where, exactly, did I say I had ANY of the facts, & seeing as BOTH posters have admitted they weren't there I don't believe they have all the facts either, but I do recognise the bully mentality often displayed by close knit groups to 'outsiders'.

And as for your comments about 'doing something about it' how about owners of 'rude' dogs do something about theirs?

Why should my under control, leashed dog, who is reactive around dogs she doesn't know but minding her own business, have to put up with other people's out of control ones, be it the 'ohhhhh but he's sooooo friendly!' type, or the type whose owner is completely out of sight & out of mind.

They are often the same type of people who allow their dogs to interact with everyone & everything, regardless of whether anyone else wants to, & they're the sort of dog owners who give the rest of us a bad name.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> Because so many non aggressive dogs aren't polite. We're lucky where I usually walk as most dogs do have reasonable social skills. But honestly, I've lost count of the number of dogs I've seen in parks and fields who just barrel up to other dogs and jump all over them, hump them, flatten them, square up to them etc. And these are deemed "friendly" behaviours by your average dog owner. They're not, they're incredibly rude. And terrifying to some dogs, hugely irritating to others. Spen is a happy, sociable dog who loves a meet and greet but he is extremely unimpressed by this sort of dog. And the owners don't like his reaction. Which is actually very appropriate, he tries to walk away and when that fails, as it almost invariably does with these dogs, he puts on his snarly face and shouts.
> 
> It seems that these sorts of dogs leave behind a trail of dogs who have learned that they either need to be frightened of other dogs or they need to take drastic measures to ensure they're not hassled. In the meantime, those of us who do have well adjusted, sociable dogs tend to completely avoid the places these dogs are usually walked as much as we possibly can so all they tend to get to interact with are other ill mannered thugs so they learn nothing. Or at least that's my take on it. But I'm afraid I won't be volunteering my dog to teach random dogs manners, it's just not worth the risk of him becoming reactive himself and unfair to force him to put up with them.


Thank you my point that as always I make badly lol

Cian is friendly sociable and has good dog manners, he makes himself tiny to dogs who are small or frightened and is gentle with all dogs! He will how ever tell dogs to f off if they are rude or run at him with an attitude, him telling a dog to go away in a correct manner could hurt a smaller dog and their owners don't like it! Why should I have to avoid nice walking areas because others can't control their dogs?


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> -----------
> 
> So did you muzzle your aunts dog from day one?
> There is always a first time for everything...I think it is a little hypicritical to made a snide jab about how well behaved Quesi's dogs are, to then go on to "Well I would never make a mistake, because of "example of one dog that wasn't even mine"
> ...


No - I was too young to have much to do with it back then and it was a horrible shock for everyone.. After the incident I would certainly muzzle him in various situations nowadays. He was onlead, he didn't start it, he simply got hold of the dog that had come over and barked at him and killed it. That was the first time for everything and there is absolutely no doubt he would do the same again in a similar situation. It's not about making never making mistakes - as far as muzzling Jaws, I'm personally not prepared to allow any dog of mine to kill more than one dog - and living in the real world, if it's a real possibility - which it was as far as he was concerned, I'm not prepared to rely on others preventing this happening.

At no time have I attached any blame at all to the mal owner. - or even mentioned size, simply stated that I'd take extra precautions with a dog that had either the sort of over-reaction response to challenge my aunt's had, or had a good possibility of grabbing the wrong small furries in the wrong situation like one of the greyhounds I used to walk..


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

This thread is making my head hurt 

Life isn't fair. Life is full of compromises. People should do all sorts of things but they don't. All any one of us can do is protect our dogs as best we can because as we all know we can't control the action of other people or their dogs much as we would like to. I truly do believe that owners of "friendly" dogs do not think about or understand the consequences of allowing their dogs to run over to on lead dogs. Yes they should and yes its polite/good manners to ask first but I really think until you have owned a dog who doesn't tolerate other dogs in its space for whatever reason (aggression/fear/pain/recovering from surgery/elderly) you (as in Mr Average) don't really think about it. I didn't either with some of my earlier dogs, I used to think people who shouted "call your dog away" were rude and unfriendly and I probably told them so too. It wasn't until we had Mabel (last rottie bitch) and realised we had taken on a dog with both dog and human aggression issues that all these things started to occur to me particularly as she needed cruciate surgery very soon after coming to us too and I struggled to walk her without dogs bombing her. Not all dog owners read internet forums and blogs/magazines, some just look at their dog as the family pet who goes for a walk in the park for a good game with other dogs and will remain ignorant of any problems they are causing to others. Not sure how we change that but in the meantime all we can do is our best for own dogs.


----------



## lullabydream (Jun 25, 2013)

I wasn't going to comment at all on this thread. As I we all know the facts, are not all here, and heresay well its just that.

I have a lead reactive dog. Had him approximately 13 years, and although he's better than he was, its never gone away.

I have lost count how many times sociable, friendly dogs have come running over to him and hes been classed as 'nasty', 'vicious' and Aggressive to name a few. This is because if another dog gets in close proximity and interacts by staring, barking, walking closer, jumping Jovi barks tries to back away air snapping. Trying to get behind me, like a ball of emotion. No he doesn't look friendly. What hes trying to do is Flight rather than fight! I know this, because when a dog has come bounding up out of no where hes off lead, hes barked and took off. Which is a worry.

I don't know if I am lucky or unlucky, there was a fight with a dog but it was mainly slobber, and Jovi was onlead and the other dog was off being walked by a group of children! Obviously the parents of this dog must have thought the dog was friendly enough to be walked by children, or I would have thought the parents would have at least thought that!

After what I have gone through daily with Jovi, I do still class him as sociable. I can bring any dog into my household and as long as they are not rude, he will grumble to tell them and just grumble.

So basically I am echoing what everyone else has said. A sociable dog is not one who says hello to every dog other dog, no matter how much they want to. A sociable dog will mind their own business. I know dogs are not humans, but if we walked down the street or round Tesco saying hello to everyone I think people would think we were a tad strange I think its sort of true for dogs too...ok dog walkers maybe a little strange quite often saying good morning / evening to there's.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

And this thread is still going on....
There is more than one 'right side' to this, but no one is listening to each other anyway...

Of course it is not acceptable that owners of large dogs are expected to be more responsible owners than owners of small dogs.
And it is not right that only certain breeds of dog are seen as 'dangerous' and will be expected to be the troublemaker in any conflict.

Neither is it acceptable that owners of small dogs can get away with having a dog with poor recall and no social skills and still let them off lead to pester other dogs, on lead or otherwise.

I understand how annoyed owners of big dogs or dog reactive dogs get when it is suggested that they should either walk their dogs in areas where they will meet no other dogs (an impossibility for many people anyway), or that their dog should be muzzled when out and on lead.
Yes, it is wrong that their dogs should be made to accommodate the poor training skills of many small dog owners.

But the reality is that a large dog, or certain breeds of dog, will get the blame when an altercation occurs, whether they started it or not. And if the police are called the result could be that their well-trained dog gets taken away from them and quite possibly pts.

So, if I was an owner of one of these breeds/sizes of dog, my first thought would be to keep my dog safe from this possibility.

I might argue that it isn't fair (and of course it isn't), but I would still do what it takes in an attempt to 'prove' to anyone concerned, that my dog was safe, even if that included muzzling the dog in public.
(and yes, I know that a muzzled dog isn't necessarily a safe dog, but it's public perception that also needs to be considered here).


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Thank you my point that as always I make badly lol
> 
> Cian is friendly sociable and has good dog manners, he makes himself tiny to dogs who are small or frightened and is gentle with all dogs! He will how ever tell dogs to f off if they are rude or run at him with an attitude, him telling a dog to go away in a correct manner could hurt a smaller dog and their owners don't like it! Why should I have to avoid nice walking areas because others can't control their dogs?


You shouldn't. Neither should I with Spen  Or with Shadow who was politely disinterested in other dogs but would yell at them if they were rude. And it's a shame that we do feel we have to avoid them if we don't want to deal with rude dogs. I have to say it does baffle me when I see owners of reactive dogs deliberately going to popular off leash areas at busy times then moaning about out of control dogs and how they have the right to walk there. Yes, they do have the right to walk there unmolested and it is unfair that they can't. But for their dogs sake as much as anyone elses surely it's better to avoid those areas? At least at the busy times.

Spen has injured another dog. Not through aggression, he ran over it while playing with another big dog. Complete accident, no dogs were out of control and I'm certainly not going to muzzle him, keep him on leash or avoid popular areas because there might be toy breeds there. Although I do take precautions around tiny dogs because a big labradork paw can really hurt them if he gets too excited. He generally doesn't these days, a sniff and move on is about all he wants.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> This thread is making my head hurt
> 
> Life isn't fair. Life is full of compromises. People should do all sorts of things but they don't. All any one of us can do is protect our dogs as best we can because as we all know we can't control the action of other people or their dogs much as we would like to. I truly do believe that owners of "friendly" dogs do not think about or understand the consequences of allowing their dogs to run over to on lead dogs. Yes they should and yes its polite/good manners to ask first but I really think until you have owned a dog who doesn't tolerate other dogs in its space for whatever reason (aggression/fear/pain/recovering from surgery/elderly) you (as in Mr Average) don't really think about it. I didn't either with some of my earlier dogs, I used to think people who shouted "call your dog away" were rude and unfriendly and I probably told them so too. It wasn't until we had Mabel (last rottie bitch) and realised we had taken on a dog with both dog and human aggression issues that all these things started to occur to me particularly as she needed cruciate surgery very soon after coming to us too and I struggled to walk her without dogs bombing her. Not all dog owners read internet forums and blogs/magazines, some just look at their dog as the family pet who goes for a walk in the park for a good game with other dogs and will remain ignorant of any problems they are causing to others. Not sure how we change that but in the meantime all we can do is our best for own dogs.


I think my point is that I muzzle Brock, happily, because I don't want him biting another dog and it gives a nice clear visual marker to other owners that he might have an issue.

I always have him on a short lead when I can see another dog and I physically avoid them as much as I can...because yes, I know he has an issue and it's my job to make sure his behaviour isn't an issue for other people.

But aggression isn't the only issue that affects other people.

A dog that will run up to other dogs, people, bikes (with or without a dog attached) and can't be recalled or isn't recalled is causing problems for other people.

If you own a dog it should be under control, whether that's heavily managed because it's dog aggressive or to stop it running in front of bikes or knocking over toddlers to lick them...


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> Where, exactly, did I say I had ANY of the facts, & seeing as BOTH posters have admitted they weren't there I don't believe they have all the facts either, but I do recognise the bully mentality often displayed by close knit groups to 'outsiders'.
> 
> And as for your comments about 'doing something about it' how about owners of 'rude' dogs do something about theirs?
> 
> ...


Because life is not fair and also dogs should not be attacking other dogs and if your dog is likely to you it is YOUR responsibility to make sure it does not. Instead of complaining about other people allowing their dogs to interact just accept that they do and they always will (not saying it is right) and your dog is the odd one out so it is up to you to make sure it cannot harm another dog. Also if your dog is wanting to attack others it will not be a very happy dog in that environment so is it fair to have it there in the first place (generic you by the way).



lullabydream said:


> So basically I am echoing what everyone else has said. A sociable dog is not one who says hello to every dog other dog, no matter how much they want to. A sociable dog will mind their own business. I know dogs are not humans, but if we walked down the street or round Tesco saying hello to everyone I think people would think we were a tad strange I think its sort of true for dogs too...ok dog walkers maybe a little strange quite often saying good morning / evening to there's.


Where I live we speak to loads of people down the street and round Tesco. I forget when I am somewhere else and still speak but oddly no one minds and they chat back to me.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Just meh lol


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> Because life is not fair and also dogs should not be attacking other dogs and if your dog is likely to you it is YOUR responsibility to make sure it does not. Instead of complaining about other people allowing their dogs to interact just accept that they do and they always will (not saying it is right) and your dog is the odd one out so it is up to you to make sure it cannot harm another dog. Also if your dog is wanting to attack others it will not be a very happy dog in that environment so is it fair to have it there in the first place (generic you by the way).
> 
> Where I live we speak to loads of people down the street and round Tesco. I forget when I am somewhere else and still speak but oddly no one minds and they chat back to me.


Except there are lots of things that dogs shouldn't be doing...

Aggression is no less just what dogs do than bouncing over to every dog.

If you have a dog that bounces over you also have to accept that that isn't going to be welcomed by all dogs, because that is also just what dogs do.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

tabulahrasa said:


> Except there are lots of things that dogs shouldn't be doing...
> 
> Aggression is no less just what dogs do than bouncing over to every dog.
> 
> If you have a dog that bounces over you also have to accept that that isn't going to be welcomed by all dogs, because that is also just what dogs do.


Of course it should not be allowed to but it is going to and no one is going to complain. If your dog attacks it then your dog is in the wrong in the eyes of the general public and the law. Who said life is fair. Who said the dog laws are fair.

Scotland has a relatively new drink drive law and now a glass of wine takes you over the limit. A lot of people find this very unfair but it is the law, we have to stick to it. Of course for those that drink and drive over the limit anyway the new limit makes no difference, it only affects those that would have one drink with a meal - but there you are, nothing we can do to change it.

In the case of the JR and malamute I fail to see how the malamute could be under control when the owner was on a bike - what the hell were they doing cycling near loose dogs in the first place.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

tabulahrasa said:


> I think my point is that I muzzle Brock, happily, because I don't want him biting another dog and it gives a nice clear visual marker to other owners that he might have an issue.
> 
> I always have him on a short lead when I can see another dog and I physically avoid them as much as I can...because yes, I know he has an issue and it's my job to make sure his behaviour isn't an issue for other people.
> 
> ...


I do agree with you but what I'm saying is there are all sorts of things people do that we can't control so I just think we should try and focus on our own dogs and what we can do/control and try not to get too hung up about other people and their lack of control or consideration because the way society is going I can't see people suddenly changing and becoming all considerate.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Okay some people seem to be very skewed about the law! Dogs out of control in public areas is against the law! The law will do very little if your dog is leashed and under control and they injure an off leash dog, hence the whole reason for this thread I do wonder if people read threads or just weigh in?


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> Of course it should not be allowed to but it is going to and no one is going to complain. If your dog attacks it then your dog is in the wrong in the eyes of the general public and the law. Who said life is fair. Who said the dog laws are fair.
> 
> Scotland has a relatively new drink drive law and now a glass of wine takes you over the limit. A lot of people find this very unfair but it is the law, we have to stick to it. Of course for those that drink and drive over the limit anyway the new limit makes no difference, it only affects those that would have one drink with a meal - but there you are, nothing we can do to change it.
> 
> In the case of the JR and malamute I fail to see how the malamute could be under control when the owner was on a bike - what the hell were they doing cycling near loose dogs in the first place.


Except the police decided that the mal's owner hadn't broken the law...


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Okay some people seem to be very skewed about the law! Dogs out of control in public areas is against the law! The law will do very little if your dog is leashed and under control and they injure an off leash dog, hence the whole reason for this thread I do wonder if people read threads or just weigh in?


As I said earlier in the thread though, the dog law experts told me that you may still be held liable if your on leash dog injures an off leash dog that approaches it. Unfair? Extremely imo. Although I suppose you could argue that if a dog is truly under control it won't be attacking the approaching dog anyway. But dogs aren't robots.

In most cases the law just doesn't seem to care about dog on dog attacks though.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Okay some people seem to be very skewed about the law! Dogs out of control in public areas is against the law! The law will do very little if your dog is leashed and under control and they injure an off leash dog, hence the whole reason for this thread I do wonder if people read threads or just weigh in?


Does that not depend on whether the dog has history of aggression or not though? if it does just having it on a lead in a public place and not muzzled might not be enough. If it actually came to a court case I'm not convinced a judge would think it acceptable that it killed another dog if the owner knew the dog was aggressive and didn't have it muzzled (I'm talking in general rather than specific to this case as we don't know the history of the dog or circumstances) even if the other dog had come up to it off its lead.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

so if you have a reactive dog you should walk it at dead of night in the bum hole of no where, if you have friendly dogs who you don't want molested by off lead dogs same,but if you have a dog off leash chasing bikes, dogs, people and generally making a pain of itself that's okay because while it is against the law to have a dog out of control in a public area ( perception again cept this time the laws decides) its just the way it is and if you don't like it your the one with the issue?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> Of course it should not be allowed to but it is going to and no one is going to complain. If your dog attacks it then your dog is in the wrong in the eyes of the general public and the law. Who said life is fair. Who said the dog laws are fair.
> 
> *In the case of the JR and malamute I fail to see how the malamute could be under control when the owner was on a bike - what the hell were they doing cycling near loose dogs in the first place*.


Do you mean what is anyone doing cycling near loose dogs or this owner with this dog specifically?


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Aaarrgggghhhh!! Seriously? How are some people STILL not grasping the fact that not every single dog on the planet WANTS to socialise with every Tom, Dick or Harry that decides to sniff its arse!

Surely the only people who can't see that, must be the people that let their dogs approach whatever they want to.

Just because YOUR dog wants to meet and greet everything it sees, does not mean it has the right to. And MY dog who doesn't want to meet and greet everything she sees should not have to put up with those that do.

If it's MY problem that YOUR dog wants to approach MY dog simply because "dogs will be dogs" then to use that same analogy, surely it should be YOUR problem if my dog wants to be off lead and chase across a park and rip your dog to shreds because well, "dogs will be dogs"

While it may seem ridiculous and far fetched and I'm never going to allow my dog to do that, it's no more ridiculous that YOU allowing YOUR unwelcomed dog to annoy mine.

It's not just a case of an aggressive dog on the lead, it could be an injured dog that could get hurt more if startled and jumps out of the way. Or a pup that is scared of incoming dogs. It could be an owner that's afraid of other dogs. It could be many things that your dog is being allowed to approach and it's not acceptable and it shouldn't be something people have to put up with.

It's idiots with that "dogs will be dogs" attitude that made my pup so terrified in the first place. She's not aggressive, she's not unpredictable, she was terrified! So thanks for that! As long as YOUR precious dog has had fun bounding up to her and scaring the bejesus out of her, then sure that's fine because DOGS WILL BE DOGS AFTER ALL!

Perhaps from now on, I'll just ring the dog warden every single time a rude dog approaches me. It frightened my dog which in turn worried me. In the eyes of the law, that dog is deemed out of control and from then onwards, should be kept leashed at all times. Maybe then I could walk my dog in the park in peace.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Meezey said:


> so if you have a reactive dog you should walk it at dead of night in the bum hole of no where, if you have friendly dogs who you don't want molested by off lead dogs same,but if you have a dog off leash chasing bikes, dogs, people and generally making a pain of itself that's okay because while it is against the law to have a dog out of control in a public area ( perception again cept this time the laws decides) its just the way it is and if you don't like it your the one with the issue?


No I don't think thats the case either and would assume if anyone reported those bike chasing dogs to the police the owners could still be in trouble for having a dog dangerously out of control, just I suppose fewer people think to report them whereas a dog on dog attack they are usually straight off to the dog warden or the police.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Does that not depend on whether the dog has history of aggression or not though? if it does just having it on a lead in a public place and not muzzled might not be enough. If it actually came to a court case I'm not convinced a judge would think it acceptable that it killed another dog if the owner knew the dog was aggressive and didn't have it muzzled (I'm talking in general rather than specific to this case as we don't know the history of the dog or circumstances) even if the other dog had come up to it off its lead.


I don't have an aggressive dog, I do have a dog that has the patience of a saint, but he has told persistent dogs to f off! Not often as I do protect him and if my boot end up the persistent dogs arse so be it! He could accidentally kill another dog not because he's aggressive but because accidence happen given peoples responses here it would be my fault and I should walk him away from everyonr and muzzle just incase! Now I already avoid areas we should be able to walk unmolested because people can't or won't control their dogs, sorry unlike others I'm not just going to accept that's just the way it is and its tough! People shouldn't have to put up with off leash out of control dogs full stop!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Okay some people seem to be very skewed about the law! Dogs out of control in public areas is against the law! The law will do very little if your dog is leashed and under control and they injure an off leash dog, hence the whole reason for this thread I do wonder if people read threads or just weigh in?


Yes that is the law.
But it is the definition of 'under control' that causes these debates.
And that is open to interpretation.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I do agree with you but what I'm saying is there are all sorts of things people do that we can't control so I just think we should try and focus on our own dogs and what we can do/control and try not to get too hung up about other people and their lack of control or consideration because the way society is going I can't see people suddenly changing and becoming all considerate.


I don't wander about with Brock unmuzzled just waiting for him to bite someone's dog when they come over so I can go, ha, should have kept your dog under control shouldn't you... Because you know, I'm not insane, lol.

But I get complained at when he's walking down the street being well behaved because he has a muzzle on and dogs like that shouldn't be allowed out, I get complained at when I'm standing in a patch of nettles 40 feet off a path to let someone by and they let their dog come over anyway and Brock has demonstrated his displeasure and I've even been complained at for crossing the road to keep him under threshold because I didn't let him meet someone's chihuahuas...

I mind my own business when I have Brock with me, but mentally and in actual discussions like on here, yep I do think, just keep your dog under control, it's not rocket science.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Meezey said:


> so if you have a reactive dog you should walk it at dead of night in the bum hole of no where, if you have friendly dogs who you don't want molested by off lead dogs same,but if you have a dog off leash chasing bikes, dogs, people and generally making a pain of itself that's okay because while it is against the law to have a dog out of control in a public area ( perception again cept this time the laws decides) its just the way it is and if you don't like it your the one with the issue?


Ridiculously unfair but that's how it seems to be 

I know a lot of dog owners I know consider me to be a control freak because I go out of my way to avoid Spen pestering anyone, dog or human and to keep him under proper control. We've had the occasional blip where he has approached another dog before I could stop him though. And I'd be devastated if he were killed because I dropped the ball for a moment. Just as I'd have been devastated if Rupert had killed another dog because of a momentary blip. Spen has been snapped at for approaching a dog who didn't want to know, he came away and I apologised (was already on my way to get him but as soon as he realised the dog wasn't interested he came back anyway).


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> Because *they have shown they are not sound in that situation*.


But that situation would not occur if other owners took responsibility for their dogs.

Muzzling a dog incapacitates it - if it is attacked it cannot defend itself. If it is attacked by more than one dog it is at a dreadful disadvantage.

It also leads people to think that because a dog is muzzled it is vicious - and this leads to particular breeds being demonised (say we muzzle mals because they're big and powerful and might respond aggressively if another dog attacks - and people look at them and think -" vicious dogs", and the BREED gets a bad name. Meanwhile the JRT, or chihuahua, or scottie which rushes, snapping, up to very dog in sight gets away with it because they're little and cute and can't cause as much damage - nobody says "Oooh - cairn terrier - watch out for that they're wicked."

And - what if you take preventative measures by muzzling your good-natured but large, powerful dog and it is a hot day (say) and you take the muzzle off so it can get a drink from a stream. And another dog attacks it, it responds, and the other dog is injured or killed, because it is smaller than yours and yours got in a "lucky" bite - you have laid yourself wide open to a lawsuit_ because you have shown by your previous action of muzzling your dog that you recognise it is a potential danger.
_
We are none of us sound in _every_ situation. I wouldn't go looking for a fight, but if someone attacked me I would likely respond, and maybe I'd get in a "lucky" punch and knock them over and they'd fracture their skull. Does that make me a danger to every other person walking about? Of course not. Only to people who try to harm me, and only in self defence. Or should I go around with both hands tightly tied behind me in case I use too much force if I am attacked again?

Each of us is responsible for the behaviour of our own dog, no matter how friendly, no matter how playful and no matter how much it wants to join in with other dogs.

Just like people, some dogs aren't particularly sociable - but they are not aggressive or intentionally dangerous. Just because a dog doesn't like other dogs humping it indiscriminately, or running at it yapping and barking, or taking a nip at it, it doesn't mean it's a bad dog.

Responsibility should be put back where it lies - on the shoulders of the offending dog's owner; not just on the owner of the more powerful dog.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

lullabydream said:


> So basically I am echoing what everyone else has said. A sociable dog is not one who says hello to every dog other dog, no matter how much they want to. A sociable dog will mind their own business. I know dogs are not humans, but *if we walked down the street or round Tesco saying hello to everyone I think people would think we were a tad strange* I think its sort of true for dogs too...ok dog walkers maybe a little strange quite often saying good morning / evening to there's.


You're not a Northener, are you? LOL


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

lostbear said:


> You're not a Northener, are you? LOL


i am a northerner but in a different country lol


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

tabulahrasa said:


> Except the police decided that the mal's owner hadn't broken the law...


Unfortunately it is unlikely that the police have a clue about dog law. I know someone who has been towing a trailer for years illegally because she asked at the local police station and they had no idea about towing laws.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Do you mean what is anyone doing cycling near loose dogs or this owner with this dog specifically?


Any dog that is going to react badly to a dog getting close to it, obviously not any dog!

By the way, just to make things clear, I seldom walk my dogs where there are other dogs and I have spent a lot of time teaching Toffee that it is rude to go up to other dogs. She is the only dog I have owned who has had the inclination to do so and it is a pain in the neck. I do accept though that a lot of owners will let their dogs go up to others. 
Also, a few years ago, while on holiday Candy disobeyed my wait command and carried on walking along a canal tow path through a group of dogs. One of them went for her and luckily for her she fell over the side so was only scared and not hurt. I truly believe it was my fault as she disobeyed me. The owners of the group of staffies were horrified it had happened and obviously expecting me to verbally attack them instead of apologise. It was perfectly obvious to me that it was not safe for my dog to carry on along the path so it was my fault for allowing it to happen.
Conversely I was walking along a tow path on a recent holiday and a dog that belonged to a boat was blocking the path with rather iffy body language. I stopped my dogs and called to the owner, who was out of sight, to ask if it was safe to pass - which it was. Now, if that dog had attacked one of mine I would have been furious.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Any dog that is going to react badly to a dog getting close to it, obviously not any dog!


There is far more to having "social" dog than simply having it go up to other dogs. It's also about understanding and respecting other dog's signals. One of the more common causes of aggression is fear. So you have your "social" dog being warned off by the body language of a dog which is on a lead. The lead prevents the normal "retreat" reaction and an incident starts. Who is really missing needed social skills?

Generally incidents could be easily avoided if all owners took responsibility for their dogs and owners communicated first rather than make assumptions.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lostbear said:


> But that situation would not occur if other owners took responsibility for their dogs.
> 
> Muzzling a dog incapacitates it - if it is attacked it cannot defend itself. If it is attacked by more than one dog it is at a dreadful disadvantage.
> 
> ...


Oh how I wish we could still rep


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

tabulahrasa said:


> But dog aggression isn't the only reason dogs might not be able to mix with other dogs.
> 
> Before Brock was dog aggressive (and it's a huge factor in why his aggression is as bad as it is) while he was recovering from his elbow operation I had to do his ten minute walks at night then too because apparently, I don't want him mixing with other dogs because he's just had an operation isn't a good enough reason to recall dogs either.
> 
> It's nice if you have a healthy dog who likes to socialise to meet like minded dogs and let them mix a bit, but they're hardly suffering if one of the dogs they're passing isn't ok to do that for one reason or another.


Totally.

It may well be that the owner has an injury or disability that may not be obvious, but being pulled around by a dog that is reacting to an approaching dog, whether through fear, aggression or excitement causes them pain or pulls them off balance.

Really, it doesn't matter what the reason is for a leashed dog to be avoiding socialisation with other dogs - the loose dogs should just be kept away.

I have often been told by some owners that their dogs can be funny with leashed dogs. Maybe they have approached one in the past that reacted badly! Now, their dog thinks all leashed dogs are going to have a go, so they want to get in first?

There are plenty of opportunities for loose dogs to socialise with other loose dogs. They aren't missing out on anything so what's the big problem of calling them back for a few moments?

My leashed dog also gets enough opportunities to socialise with other dogs - he's not a recluse! It just happens when I choose it, and with which dog, as is my right.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> I have often been told by some owners that their dogs can be funny with leashed dogs. Maybe they have approached one in the past that reacted badly! Now, their dog thinks all leashed dogs are going to have a go, so they want to get in first?


I often find this is nothing but a bullshit excuse for the dogs behaviour and the dog is "a bit funny" with dogs in general. Usually blamed on colour, breed, size, gender, neuter status, on or off leash or what phase the moon is in.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Meezey said:


> Thank you my point that as always I make badly lol
> 
> Cian is friendly sociable and has good dog manners, he makes himself tiny to dogs who are small or frightened and is gentle with all dogs! He will how ever tell dogs to f off if they are rude or run at him with an attitude, him telling a dog to go away in a correct manner could hurt a smaller dog and their owners don't like it! Why should I have to avoid nice walking areas because others can't control their dogs?


And my Jack is also the same, except that he WON'T tell a rude dog to back off. He will just submit and so am I to just witness his discomfort and unhappiness, or do I protect him from those dogs? Obviously, I would protect him but as we know, it's not easy to block a determined pest!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Meezey said:


> I don't have an aggressive dog, I do have a dog that has the patience of a saint, but he has told persistent dogs to f off! Not often as I do protect him and if my boot end up the persistent dogs arse so be it! He could accidentally kill another dog not because he's aggressive but because accidence happen given peoples responses here it would be my fault and I should walk him away from everyonr and muzzle just incase! Now I already avoid areas we should be able to walk unmolested because people can't or won't control their dogs, sorry unlike others I'm not just going to accept that's just the way it is and its tough! People shouldn't have to put up with off leash out of control dogs full stop!


I don't think anyone has said you should muzzle him - I certainly didn't. I said if an owner knows their dog is aggressive to other dogs then I think they should muzzle whether their dog is on a lead or not. I don't think him telling rude dogs to bog off is being aggressive. Any dog could kill another by accident - out of my 3 one of the pointers is far more likely to kill a small dog than Indie - unless she sat on it  but accidents are just that and accidents do happen, I don't think that is at all the same as risk assessing, knowing your dog is a danger to other dogs but taking the risk anyway.



tabulahrasa said:


> I don't wander about with Brock unmuzzled just waiting for him to bite someone's dog when they come over so I can go, ha, should have kept your dog under control shouldn't you... Because you know, I'm not insane, lol.
> 
> But I get complained at when he's walking down the street being well behaved because he has a muzzle on and dogs like that shouldn't be allowed out, I get complained at when I'm standing in a patch of nettles 40 feet off a path to let someone by and they let their dog come over anyway and Brock has demonstrated his displeasure and I've even been complained at for crossing the road to keep him under threshold because I didn't let him meet someone's chihuahuas...
> 
> I mind my own business when I have Brock with me, but mentally and in actual discussions like on here, yep I do think, just keep your dog under control, it's not rocket science.


You are not telling me anything I haven't experienced personally, I've also lived with an aggressive rottie and been through the years of walking her muzzled and trying to avoid other people/dogs and having to put up with the comments and the looks and the dogs coming up to her despite requests to owners to keep their dogs away. Nothing has changed in the years since she died, its the same old same old and I doubt it will change until they eventually make it compulsory for all dogs to be on leads in all public places. I suspect that will happen some time in the next 10 years.



lostbear said:


> But that situation would not occur if other owners took responsibility for their dogs.
> 
> Muzzling a dog incapacitates it - if it is attacked it cannot defend itself. If it is attacked by more than one dog it is at a dreadful disadvantage.
> 
> ...


But isn't that one of the problems - agreeing on who is the offending owner. Nothing is ever black and white, probably in every situation that happens its partly one owner's fault and partly the other. Sometimes we make judgement calls and get it wrong and sometimes accidents happen and you turn a corner and a dog is there where you hadn't expected it. Also most muzzles designed for exercise allow the dog to drink - my last girl wore a baskerville and we never had to take it off for her to have a drink she used to play ball in the stream by knocking it about with her muzzle too.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> This thread is making my head hurt
> 
> Life isn't fair. Life is full of compromises. People should do all sorts of things but they don't. All any one of us can do is protect our dogs as best we can because as we all know we can't control the action of other people or their dogs much as we would like to. I truly do believe that owners of "friendly" dogs do not think about or understand the consequences of allowing their dogs to run over to on lead dogs. Yes they should and yes its polite/good manners to ask first but I really think until you have owned a dog who doesn't tolerate other dogs in its space for whatever reason (aggression/fear/pain/recovering from surgery/elderly) you (as in Mr Average) don't really think about it. I didn't either with some of my earlier dogs, I used to think people who shouted "call your dog away" were rude and unfriendly and I probably told them so too. It wasn't until we had Mabel (last rottie bitch) and realised we had taken on a dog with both dog and human aggression issues that all these things started to occur to me particularly as she needed cruciate surgery very soon after coming to us too and I struggled to walk her without dogs bombing her. Not all dog owners read internet forums and blogs/magazines, some just look at their dog as the family pet who goes for a walk in the park for a good game with other dogs and will remain ignorant of any problems they are causing to others. Not sure how we change that but in the meantime all we can do is our best for own dogs.


That is a fair point, but for those of us who have politely explained the problems caused for our dogs by being approached and the other owner acknowledges that, yet still allows their dog to approach, again and again and again - well it's not surprising that we get a bit het up about it! 

I don't expect everyone to "get it". But I can still have a moan about it 

Coming on a forum and having a vent can be therapeutic


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I did used to let Rosie socialise with other dogs and that became the cause of our problems.

Up to the age of eighteen months, Rosie was not reactive and would greet any dog happily until a man appeared in the park one morning with a Westie bitch. He allowed his dog to walk up to Rosie and without any warning, no posturing, no growling, it leapt on Rosie and bit her through the back of the neck and ear.

I had to split them up and the man tutted and said "I don't know what's up with this dog lately, it's going for everything it sees". He knew his dog was aggressive, but let it approach anyway.

Rosie became fearful after that and it was a long time before I could allow her to greet any dog again.

These days, if a dog approaches politely and calmly, she's fine. She'll greet them, have a quick sniff and then she moves on. If they come tearing at her or jump on her, she becomes defensive and sees them off.

In an ideal world, all dogs should be able to mingle happily together but some dogs don't want to or have had a bad experience which has made them distrustful of other dogs.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> You are not telling me anything I haven't experienced personally, I've also lived with an aggressive rottie and been through the years of walking her muzzled and trying to avoid other people/dogs and having to put up with the comments and the looks and the dogs coming up to her despite requests to owners to keep their dogs away. Nothing has changed in the years since she died, its the same old same old and I doubt it will change until they eventually make it compulsory for all dogs to be on leads in all public places. I suspect that will happen some time in the next 10 years.
> 
> But isn't that one of the problems - agreeing on who is the offending owner. Nothing is ever black and white, probably in every situation that happens its partly one owner's fault and partly the other. Sometimes we make judgement calls and get it wrong and sometimes accidents happen and you turn a corner and a dog is there where you hadn't expected it. Also most muzzles designed for exercise allow the dog to drink - my last girl wore a baskerville and we never had to take it off for her to have a drink she used to play ball in the stream by knocking it about with her muzzle too.


The man annoyed at me for avoiding his chihuahuas was a new one on me to be fair, lol.

I'm still not quite sure why he was so annoyed, I did explain to him that I cross to avoid all dogs as he's aggressive with dogs and I prefer him to not kick off...but that wasn't a reason to avoid his dogs apparently ...


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I do agree with you but what I'm saying is there are all sorts of things people do that we can't control so I just think we should try and focus on our own dogs and what we can do/control and try not to get too hung up about other people and their lack of control or consideration because the way society is going I can't see people suddenly changing and becoming all considerate.


I do agree - once I accepted that most other dogs are not under their owners' control and I couldn't rely on them being called back, I decided to take the line of least resistance and AVOID if possible, unwanted encounters lessened.

Just as I keep an eye out for squirrels, rabbits and cats on my walks - I also keep an eye open for any dogs and their owners entering my "zone" and take evasive action where possible. It's not 100% perfect, but I took control of the situation and it's much improved 

And when we spy a "considerate" owner we socialise, assuming they want to as well


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Lurcherlad said:


> That is a fair point, but for those of us who have politely explained the problems caused for our dogs by being approached and the other owner acknowledges that, yet still allows their dog to approach, again and again and again - well it's not surprising that we get a bit het up about it!
> 
> I don't expect everyone to "get it". But I can still have a moan about it
> 
> Coming on a forum and having a vent can be therapeutic


Of course it can and I'm not saying you shouldn't have moan about it, just I found when walking Mabel the places where more idiots walked and did let their dogs keep coming up to her (or in the case of the JRT I mentioned earlier actually attack her and hang off her throat) it was just easier to walk elsewhere and leave them to it. I want to enjoy my dog walks and want my dogs to enjoy them too so can't be arsed with all that confrontation.



tabulahrasa said:


> The man annoyed at me for avoiding his chihuahuas was a new one on me to be fair, lol.
> 
> I'm still not quite sure why he was so annoyed, I did explain to him that I cross to avoid all dogs as he's aggressive with dogs and I prefer him to not kick off...but that wasn't a reason to avoid his dogs apparently ...


Yes I can't say as I've heard that one before but we had plenty of the other stupid comments about devil dogs and muzzled dogs and how she should be put down etc etc :Yawn:Yawn


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Oliver was always friendly to everyone and anyone.Dog or person.I used to avoid people and all other animals however since Oliver used to get so worked up that all rules and thought patterns went right out the window with him being so excited.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Of course it can and I'm not saying you shouldn't have moan about it, just I found when walking Mabel the places where more idiots walked and did let their dogs keep coming up to her (or in the case of the JRT I mentioned earlier actually attack her and hang off her throat) it was just easier to walk elsewhere and leave them to it. I want to enjoy my dog walks and want my dogs to enjoy them too so can't be arsed with all that confrontation.
> 
> Yes I can't say as I've heard that one before but we had plenty of the other stupid comments about devil dogs and muzzled dogs and how she should be put down etc etc :Yawn:Yawn


I used to get those kinds of comments about Oliver and he would never hurt anyone on purpose.He did claw a neighbor boy in the face while sitting pretty one day.He hurt my neighbor ladys foot and knee by running into her and stomping on her foot.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Of course it can and I'm not saying you shouldn't have moan about it, just I found when walking Mabel the places where more idiots walked and did let their dogs keep coming up to her (or in the case of the JRT I mentioned earlier actually attack her and hang off her throat) it was just easier to walk elsewhere and leave them to it. I want to enjoy my dog walks and want my dogs to enjoy them too so can't be arsed with all that confrontation.


Oh so do I 

I skirt the very edges of the playing field, often darting behind a hedge if necessary, to avoid the mob in the middle and head off towards open countryside. Far less chance of meeting anyone and if you do you can see them from a good distance and head off in another direction. Also, so much more enjoyable to walk the footpaths and bridleways, experiencing the countryside and wildlife than stand in the middle of the same park, day in and day out


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> Oh so do I
> 
> I skirt the very edges of the playing field, often darting behind a hedge if necessary, to avoid the mob in the middle and head off towards open countryside. Far less chance of meeting anyone and if you do you can see them from a good distance and head off in another direction. Also, so much more enjoyable to walk the footpaths and bridleways, experiencing the countryside and wildlife than stand in the middle of the same park, day in and day out


I find it's usually those who stand in the middle of the park/field day in, day out who have the "friendly" dogs who are such a nuisance. I think that's why there are so few problems where I tend to walk Spen, it's not a static environment. People go there and walk rather than go there to stand around and chat. Don't get me wrong, we often say hello and sometimes stop for a couple of minutes of small talk with other owners but you don't get the groups of people standing around chatting while the dogs run riot. We meet, we have a brief hello how are you type conversation and move on. The dogs do the same.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> Oh so do I
> 
> I skirt the very edges of the playing field, often darting behind a hedge if necessary, to avoid the mob in the middle and head off towards open countryside. Far less chance of meeting anyone and if you do you can see them from a good distance and head off in another direction. Also, so much more enjoyable to walk the footpaths and bridleways, experiencing the countryside and wildlife than stand in the middle of the same park, day in and day out


True but sometimes it would be nice to be able to have a close to home walk in the park without being mugged! Cian while being muzzled should also wear a condom at all times as our last walk in the local park we got mobbed by an in season off lead bitch who liked Cian a lot!! But that's another story done in another thread!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

lostbear said:


> But that situation would not occur if other owners took responsibility for their dogs.
> 
> *One person's 'responsibility' may be quite different from others'*
> 
> ...


The bottom line is that we should all have responsibility for our dogs, however, if you have an aggressive dog then you need to take more care when around other dogs. I have no problem with aggressive dogs. My problem is with owners who don't manage them responsibly.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

This thread has made for interesting reading. 

As the owner of two Jacks, one who is very fearful (the other rather confident) I find it so rude and disrespectful when people allow their dogs to charge at Dottie on lead (Charlie I'm not too fussed about as he has plenty of spoons). I echo what most are saying - I think regardless of size and breed, you should keep your dog under control. Lack of respect and manners really makes me mad.

We've had little, fluffy dogs come charging out of the blue and mob us - poor Dottie lost all her spoons and our walk was ruined. If these dogs had approached Charlie, I wouldn't have let them play together as his PD is high and I wouldnt risk it, but it then brings the debate back to the starting point - whose fault would it be? I always put Charlie on lead around dogs, ESPECIALLY tiny little fluffy dogs who squeal as they run at us. But if he is on lead and walking away or playing with a toy, minding his own business and a tiny, fluffy dog comes running up under his legs, jumping all over his face (a JR puppy and YT puppy spring to mind!) what can I do? Should he be muzzled all the time just in case an awol dog comes over? Again, he has never shown aggression to small, fluffy dogs BUT I can't predict his every move and behaviour so should I muzzle him because other people wont control their dogs? 

So I walk both of them in quiet places where I know the chances of seeing other dogs are slim for Dotties sake and also for the added peace, although now I am currently 26 weeks pregnant and suffering with the most awful pain in my right thigh, so cant walk for very long without the pain crippling me to the spot and not being able to move for 20 minutes or longer. So I can't 'pick up the pace' and move on quickly, which has knocked my confidence a lot, even walking my 'easy' dog Charlie I can't keep up and keep him on a flexi. I ensure we walk in places that are safe and enjoyable for all of us, I like being social but when one of my dogs suffers in 'popular' places and you cant rely on respect from other people, we take the quiet routes every time.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Most of us with large breed dogs already tend to be more careful, we are very aware of what our dogs could do and our responsible for our dogs!
> 
> To use your example would you stop driving your 4x4 just in case someone in a Micra had been using their phone while driving at speed drinking could smash in to you causing themselves serious injury, even though you had been driving far far more carefully than any other driver on the road even though you were in a 4 x 4 with bullbars?


Gosh that was a long question @Meezey . No, I wouldn't stop driving it and yes, I'm sure that responsible owners of large breeds do take great care.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> The bottom line is that we should all have responsibility for our dogs, however, if you have an aggressive dog then you need to take more care when around other dogs. I have no problem with aggressive dogs. *My problem is with owners who don't manage them responsibly.*




Which is what I was saying.


----------



## cabot (Jul 2, 2011)

This story rolls on and after being interviewed by the police, the owner refuses point blank to even consider putting a muzzle on him to pacify nearby dog owners. Today he passed a spaniel dog owner who had concerns about this dog as he had it pushed against a wall to try and control it whilst they passed. This confirms to me that the dog has behavioural issues with other dogs. Whilst being interviewed by the police the dog was well behaved which of course malamutes are towards human beings.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cabot said:


> This story rolls on and after being interviewed by the police, the owner refuses point blank to even consider putting a muzzle on him to pacify nearby dog owners. Today he passed a spaniel dog owner who had concerns about this dog as he had it pushed against a wall to try and control it whilst they passed. This confirms to me that the dog has behavioural issues with other dogs. Whilst being interviewed by the police the dog was well behaved which of course malamutes are towards human beings.


Yes of course! Would this be the same kind of story as your neighbour who have 5 dogs they never walk that you were going to the press about lovely friendly street!

Again were you there during any of this?


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

cabot said:


> This story rolls on and after being interviewed by the police, the owner refuses point blank to even consider putting a muzzle on him to pacify nearby dog owners. Today he passed a spaniel dog owner who had concerns about this dog as he had it pushed against a wall to try and control it whilst they passed. This confirms to me that the dog has behavioural issues with other dogs. Whilst being interviewed by the police the dog was well behaved which of course malamutes are towards human beings.


To be honest, I wouldn't muzzle my dog simply to pacify nearby dog owners either. If the Mal owner had the dog up against a wall whilst spaniel and spaniel owner passed, then he was taking control of his dog to prevent another incident. It does not necessarily "confirm that the dog has behavioural issues with other dogs" It confirms nothing other than the mal owner, is being responsible for the behaviour of his dog. Well done to him. I'm glad he's taking positive measures to ensure something like this never happens again. If only the rest of the neighbourhood did the same..


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cabot said:


> This story rolls on and after being interviewed by the police, the owner refuses point blank to even consider putting a muzzle on him to pacify nearby dog owners. Today he passed a spaniel dog owner who had concerns about this dog as he had it pushed against a wall to try and control it whilst they passed.* This confirms to me that the dog has behavioural issues with other dogs. *Whilst being interviewed by the police the dog was well behaved which of course malamutes are towards human beings.


No - it confirms that the owner is taking no risks that there will be a repeat of the horrible incident.


----------



## astro2011 (Dec 13, 2011)

The mal might get get over stimulates around other dogs. I think the police will be able to make the decision if it requires a muzzle or not.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Nettles said:


> To be honest, I wouldn't muzzle my dog simply to pacify nearby dog owners either. If the Mal owner had the dog up against a wall whilst spaniel and spaniel owner passed, then he was taking control of his dog to prevent another incident. It does not necessarily "confirm that the dog has behavioural issues with other dogs" It confirms nothing other than the mal owner, is being responsible for the behaviour of his dog. Well done to him. I'm glad he's taking positive measures to ensure something like this never happens again. If only the rest of the neighbourhood did the same..


If my dog had killed another, regardless of it wasn't intentional, or was an 'unlucky' bite then s/he would be muzzled if around other dogs, even if my dog was not at fault. I cannot understand anyone who would not do this if they were out in public with other dogs around knowing the potential consequences.

Whilst other owners should be in charge of their dogs we all know this doesn't always happen so surely we (the responsible wonwers) should be proactive & stop any future occurrences (as much as we can) rather than argue about blame ... & I speak from experience of having a reactive dog who was muzzled for a while (PA & DA at the time)


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> If my dog had killed another, regardless of it wasn't intentional, or was an 'unlucky' bite then s/he would be muzzled if around other dogs, even if my dog was not at fault. I cannot understand anyone who would not do this if they were out in public with other dogs around knowing the potential consequences.
> 
> Whilst other owners should be in charge of their dogs we all know this doesn't always happen so surely we (the responsible wonwers) should be proactive & stop any future occurrences (as much as we can) rather than argue about blame ... & I speak from experience of having a reactive dog who was muzzled for a while (PA & DA at the time)


I agree with this 1000%, if you know your dog is capable of damaging another (no matter what the reasons were) then the dog requires muzzling in public.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Whilst I agree, circumstances seem to call for a muzzle, if a dog is not used to one, it's not something you can simply slap on a dog and say sorted.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Goblin said:


> Whilst I agree, circumstances seem to call for a muzzle, if a dog is not used to one, it's not something you can simply slap on a dog and say sorted.


I'd love to know how the OP knows what the Police said and the Mal owners response? They seem to know everything without being present at anything?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> If my dog had killed another, regardless of it wasn't intentional, or was an 'unlucky' bite then s/he would be muzzled if around other dogs, even if my dog was not at fault. I cannot understand anyone who would not do this if they were out in public with other dogs around knowing the potential consequences.
> 
> Whilst other owners should be in charge of their dogs we all know this doesn't always happen so surely we (the responsible wonwers) should be proactive & stop any future occurrences (as much as we can) rather than argue about blame ... & I speak from experience of having a reactive dog who was muzzled for a while (PA & DA at the time)


This. Pretty much what I've been trying to say (apparently badly lol) in my posts. It's not about "just in case" muzzling. It's about taking sensible precautions with a dog that has shown it's dangerous. Rupert never killed another dog but the injuries he inflicted on a puppy that ran up to him resulted in him being muzzled in public. He'd actually never made contact before that incident. There's a first time for everything sadly.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Whilst I agree, circumstances seem to call for a muzzle, if a dog is not used to one, it's not something you can simply slap on a dog and say sorted.


No, I agree but then maybe you have to take other measures of where & when to walk, be sensible.

When I had to muzzle Roxy I was devastated, I felt I had failed her.... I hadn't, I simply had a dog (she had only been with me a month or so) who had issues that I had not contributed to & was out of my depth in managing them.

Whilst I had help from a behaviourist a couple of incidents when we were out (directed at people) made me realise she had to be muzzled for the safety of others & herself.

It was the actual idea of the muzzle itself that upset me & what people would think .... now I would think differently ... I wouldn't really be bothered what people thought of her & I realise that muzzling a dog is not a failure but more of a sensible precaution.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2015)

cabot said:


> This story rolls on and after being interviewed by the police, the owner refuses point blank to even consider putting a muzzle on him to pacify nearby dog owners. Today he passed a spaniel dog owner who had concerns about this dog as he had it pushed against a wall to try and control it whilst they passed. *This confirms to me that the dog has behavioural issues with other dogs.* Whilst being interviewed by the police the dog was well behaved which of course malamutes are towards human beings.


How on earth does the owner's behavior around another dog confirm that the dog has issues? How do you know the Malamute owner wasn't just trying to appease the Spaniel owner who had concerns, or maybe the Spaniel owner was concerned because their dog was the one with issues, and the Malamute was pushed against the wall to protect him from the spaniel? Good grief you have a lot of information for someone who isn't the owner of the Malamute, isn't the owner of the Spaniel, and I assume was not there to witness the interaction between the Spaniel and the malamute.

I do agree this dog should be muzzled, but how do you know the owner refused? Maybe he's in the process of desensitization and the dog needed to go pee? How are you privy to the conversation between this owner and the police?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> How on earth does the owner's behavior around another dog confirm that the dog has issues? How do you know the Malamute owner wasn't just trying to appease the Spaniel owner who had concerns, or maybe the Spaniel owner was concerned because their dog was the one with issues, and the Malamute was pushed against the wall to protect him from the spaniel? Good grief you have a lot of information for someone who isn't the owner of the Malamute, isn't the owner of the Spaniel, and I assume was not there to witness the interaction between the Spaniel and the malamute.
> 
> I do agree this dog should be muzzled, but how do you know the owner refused? Maybe he's in the process of desensitization and the dog needed to go pee? How are you privy to the conversation between this owner and the police?


Close communities often do know what is going on surprisingly accurately. Round here everyone knows exactly what is going on. Obviously it is sometimes totally wrong but more often it is right. Sometimes I am told something that sounds so outrageous I dismiss it only to find later that it was completely true. The funniest ever was when we bought this farm rather deviously as the person that owned it did not like us. Once it had gone through my husband told a friend that we had bought it and he told his aunt who said it could not be true because 'so and so' (who knows everything) had told her it was an outsider. Oh and I also had a visitor one day years ago saying how sorry she was that we were leaving. That was funny. But on the whole the stories that go round are just about 100 percent true.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

cabot said:


> This story rolls on and after being interviewed by the police, the owner refuses point blank to even consider putting a muzzle on him to pacify nearby dog owners. Today he passed a spaniel dog owner who had concerns about this dog as he had it pushed against a wall to try and control it whilst they passed. This confirms to me that the dog has behavioural issues with other dogs. Whilst being interviewed by the police the dog was well behaved which of course malamutes are towards human beings.


Have to say I'm surprised you have been privy to a conversation between the police and the Mal owner. I seem to recall you are in Scotland so I'm not sure what the law is there but surely the police or dog warden could issue an order that the dog be muzzled in public if they thought it was necessary.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> If my dog had killed another, regardless of it wasn't intentional, or was an 'unlucky' bite then s/he would be muzzled if around other dogs, even if my dog was not at fault. I cannot understand anyone who would not do this if they were out in public with other dogs around knowing the potential consequences.
> 
> Whilst other owners should be in charge of their dogs we all know this doesn't always happen so surely we (the responsible wonwers) should be proactive & stop any future occurrences (as much as we can) rather than argue about blame ... & I speak from experience of having a reactive dog who was muzzled for a while (PA & DA at the time)


Whoa calm down there and read my reply again before jumping to conclusions 

In response to Cabots comment "the owner refuses point blank to even consider putting a muzzle on him to pacify nearby dog owners"

I replied *"To be honest, I wouldn't muzzle my dog simply to pacify nearby dog owners either"*

I made no reference whatsoever to muzzling the dog because of his history of DA as neither did the OP.

As it so happens, if my dog had attacked and killed another dog in an unprovoked attack, then MY DOG WOULD BE MUZZLED!

HOWEVER in this instance, since..

1. None of us were there during this incident, including the OP or the friendly neighbour PollyPerkins (who I would reckon is more than likely an alter ego of the OP)

2. None of the other owners in the neighbourhood can see how the JRT could perhaps have been to blame (because he was a friendly dog!)

3. The other owners seem to find it totally acceptable for a "friendly" dog to approach a strange working Mal, on a lead pulling a bike..

4. The OP deemed it fit to mention that the Mal owner is an outsider who only rents rather than owning his own property (as if that was in any way relevant)

For all those reasons, I would tend to trust the one person who had their dog on a lead and didn't participate in the free for all doggy get togethers.. The Mal owner! If he doesn't deem a muzzle necessary in this instance, then I would tend to trust his judgement before those waving the pitchforks.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> If my dog had killed another, regardless of it wasn't intentional, or was an 'unlucky' bite then s/he would be muzzled if around other dogs, even if my dog was not at fault. I cannot understand anyone who would not do this if they were out in public with other dogs around knowing the potential consequences.
> 
> Whilst other owners should be in charge of their dogs we all know this doesn't always happen so surely we (the responsible wonwers) should be proactive & stop any future occurrences (as much as we can) rather than argue about blame ... & I speak from experience of having a reactive dog who was muzzled for a while (PA & DA at the time)


I would too, primarily to reduce the chances of it happening again and my dog ending up being seized or pts. But, only if he had killed or seriously injured another dog before.

My friend with the FA greyhound was mugged this morning by the cute JR pup which ran the equivalent of the length of 2 football pitches to get to her. Luckily, she is tolerant of pups, but even she was getting stressed by it and my friend was doing her best to keep the pup away. The owner eventually got over there, apologised profusely, etc. carried the pup away and clipped it's lead on, then gave it a yank for good measure! She simply does not know how to bring up and train a pup correctly - that's obvious. (I entered the field in the last few moments of this and saw what was happening so legged it over with Jack to try and act as a decoy (as he is totally fine with other dogs), so that the pup would come away from my friend's dog and head for him.

The JR pup should NOT be let off the lead until the owner has taught some control - but I guarantee it will be off again tomorrow! The pup's luck may run out one day 

Who would have got the blame if the greyhound had killed the pup, and be labelled as vicious/dangerous? I can guess 

BTW - although she gets gobby when rude dogs get in her face, she hasn't ever attacked another dog.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> No, I agree but then maybe you have to take other measures of where & when to walk, be sensible.


Seems to be that is what is happening. You can never guarantee you will never meet another dog. In this instance it seems to be in a place where all dogs should be on a lead so no possibility of "roaming" dogs without an owner nearby.



Blitz said:


> Close communities often do know what is going on surprisingly accurately. Round here everyone knows exactly what is going on. Obviously it is sometimes totally wrong but more often it is right.


We also live in a close community. There's also the attitude of siding against the outsider so as not to upset the applecart and banding together even if the fault is due to someone in the community, especially when that person has suffered a devastating loss. This "knowing what is going on" is often like chinese whispers. How many sides to the story have people heard before making judgement?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> Close communities often do know what is going on surprisingly accurately. Round here everyone knows exactly what is going on. Obviously it is sometimes totally wrong but more often it is right. Sometimes I am told something that sounds so outrageous I dismiss it only to find later that it was completely true. The funniest ever was when we bought this farm rather deviously as the person that owned it did not like us. Once it had gone through my husband told a friend that we had bought it and he told his aunt who said it could not be true because 'so and so' (who knows everything) had told her it was an outsider. Oh and I also had a visitor one day years ago saying how sorry she was that we were leaving. That was funny. But on the whole the stories that go round are just about 100 percent true.


Sounds like my idea of hell. I keep all communications with neighbours to a polite "hello how are you and move on". Can't think of anything worse than a whole "community" knowing my business.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sounds like my idea of hell. I keep all communications with neighbours to a polite "hello how are you and move on". Can't think of anything worse than a whole "community" knowing my business.


With one exception, we have lovely neighbours, but like you say, we keep out of their business & expect them to pay us the same courtesy.

However most of the village are curtain twitchers & if an 'outsider' (bearing in mind I'm considered an outsider even though I was born here!) isn't forthcoming with their life history, or isn't interested in attending the Ladies Conservative Coffee Club, then they will just make stuff up anyway.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

simplysardonic said:


> With one exception, we have lovely neighbours, but like you say, we keep out of their business & expect them to pay us the same courtesy.
> 
> However most of the village are curtain twitchers & if an 'outsider' (bearing in mind I'm considered an outsider even though I was born here!) isn't forthcoming with their life history, or isn't interested in attending the Ladies Conservative Coffee Club, then they will just make stuff up anyway.


My husband says I have a particular "look" that makes it clear questions are not welcome and I am an expert at not answering anyway. If they want to make things up they are welcome to but hopefully they have better things to do with their time.


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

I am so pleased I have one neighbour and she's a cat owner  lol


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ellenlouisepascoe said:


> I am so pleased I have one neighbour and she's a cat owner  lol


Don't say that you have Huskies don't you know they eat cats without a second thought! Silly neighbour doesn't she know what danger she is in?


----------



## ellenlouisepascoe (Jul 12, 2013)

Haha they are indoor cats only luckily  Plus the wall between our gardens is about 20ft x


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> The JR pup should NOT be let off the lead until the owner has taught some control - but I guarantee it will be off again tomorrow! The pup's luck may run out one day
> 
> Who would have got the blame if the greyhound had killed the pup, a? I can guess
> 
> BTW - although she gets gobby when rude dogs get in her face, she hasn't ever attacked another dog.


For what it's worth - IMO in that instance, no one - the pups owner made a mistake. If, however, a couple of weeks later the greyhound killed another that wandered over, that'd be different for me.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Nettles said:


> To be honest, I wouldn't muzzle my dog simply to pacify nearby dog owners either. If the Mal owner had the dog up against a wall whilst spaniel and spaniel owner passed, then he was taking control of his dog to prevent another incident. It does not necessarily "confirm that the dog has behavioural issues with other dogs" It confirms nothing other than the mal owner, is being responsible for the behaviour of his dog. Well done to him. I'm glad he's taking positive measures to ensure something like this never happens again. If only the rest of the neighbourhood did the same..


No, the owner is not being responsible, they are in denial!

He needed to pin his dog against a wall while another dog passed? I don't call that being responsible. His dog has already killed a dog, he should be in a muzzle. 
But what I find so frustrating is people's reluctance to put a muzzle on their dog, both this owner an many on here. What is wrong with it. I'll bet those that won't put a muzzle on their dog would have no problem putting a halti on them! A muzzle is a tool, just like a halti/harness etc. I would also add I know moe dogs that are in muzzles because they eat crap than because they are aggressive.
I wish people would get over their muzzle phobia - only then will we see responsible owners.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> No, the owner is not being responsible, they are in denial!
> 
> He needed to pin his dog against a wall while another dog passed? I don't call that being responsible. His dog has already killed a dog, he should be in a muzzle.
> But what I find so frustrating is people's reluctance to put a muzzle on their dog, both this owner an many on here. What is wrong with it. I'll bet those that won't put a muzzle on their dog would have no problem putting a halti on them! A muzzle is a tool, just like a halti/harness etc. I would also add I know moe dogs that are in muzzles because they eat crap than because they are aggressive.
> I wish people would get over their muzzle phobia - only then will we see responsible owners.


I have no objection to muzzling but I do object to muzzling because my dog is a certain size or breed which was suggestion earlier on in the thread.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> No, the owner is not being responsible, they are in denial!
> 
> He needed to pin his dog against a wall while another dog passed? I don't call that being responsible. His dog has already killed a dog, he should be in a muzzle.
> But what I find so frustrating is people's reluctance to put a muzzle on their dog, both this owner an many on here. What is wrong with it. I'll bet those that won't put a muzzle on their dog would have no problem putting a halti on them! A muzzle is a tool, just like a halti/harness etc. I would also add I know moe dogs that are in muzzles because they eat crap than because they are aggressive.
> *I wish people would get over their muzzle phobia - only then will we see responsible owners.*


I do agree, but it was probably being on here that helped make me see muzzles as a tool rather than an admission of failure (as I sort of saw it) so in some ways I can't blame people for being reluctant ... although in an instance so severe (as in this thread) then surely itn't somehting that would be debateable


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> No, the owner is not being responsible, they are in denial!
> 
> He needed to pin his dog against a wall while another dog passed? I don't call that being responsible. His dog has already killed a dog, he should be in a muzzle.
> But what I find so frustrating is people's reluctance to put a muzzle on their dog, both this owner an many on here. What is wrong with it. I'll bet those that won't put a muzzle on their dog would have no problem putting a halti on them! A muzzle is a tool, just like a halti/harness etc. I would also add I know moe dogs that are in muzzles because they eat crap than because they are aggressive.
> I wish people would get over their muzzle phobia - only then will we see responsible owners.


Do you know the owner to know he's in denial? Were you there to witness the attack or it having to be apparently pinned to the wall to allow another dog to pass?
Also, if you had read my post properly before jumping to conclusions, you would have seen that I made no mention of my opinion on muzzling. I certainly have no "phobia" of muzzling a dog, I don't actually believe such a bizarre phobia exists tbh and I also stated in another post that if it were my dog, it would be muzzled.
As it happens, my childhood dog was muzzled every single time she was walked.

As for your last sentence.. "I wish people would get over their muzzle phobia - only then will we see responsible owners.."

Are you suggesting only responsible owners muzzle their dogs?

If so, your opinion astounds me!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rocco33 said:


> But what I find so frustrating is people's reluctance to put a muzzle on their dog, both this owner an many on here. What is wrong with it. I'll bet those that won't put a muzzle on their dog would have no problem putting a halti on them! A muzzle is a tool, just like a halti/harness etc. I would also add I know moe dogs that are in muzzles because they eat crap than because they are aggressive.
> I wish people would get over their muzzle phobia - only then will we see responsible owners.


My chihuahua wears a muzzle when I take her into public places (not the park though) as she is a scavenger, but also because she is anxious and the presence of the muzzle makes children a bit less keen to run up and try to hug her.
Even the owner of a chihuahua could be prosecuted if their dog appeared aggressive and out of control. I would never want things to get to that stage just because other people choose not to control their children.

When we had sight hounds, they were also muzzled for walks (and runs) to protect local wildlife.
With the correct, well-fitting muzzle and a dog used to wearing one, I really don't see making a dog wear a muzzle as a huge problem.

I do, however, see the reluctance of some owners, in their fear that their dog would be at a disadvantage if attacked, especially by more than one dog, but I don't see that as a strong enough reason to reject muzzling a dog that requires it.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

silvi said:


> I do, however, see the reluctance of some owners, in their fear that their dog would be at a disadvantage if attacked, especially by more than one dog, but I don't see that as a strong enough reason to reject muzzling a dog that requires it.


I have never really understood that viewpoint if I'm honest. I mean if I have to break up a dog fight at all, I would much rather have to deal with one aggressor than have two dogs going at it...If your (general you) dog is likely to use his teeth (especially to the extent in the OP) then the last thing you want is for him to feel the need to defend himself IMHO


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Nettles said:


> Do you know the owner to know he's in denial? Were you there to witness the attack or it having to be apparently pinned to the wall to allow another dog to pass?
> Also, if you had read my post properly before jumping to conclusions, you would have seen that I made no mention of my opinion on muzzling. I certainly have no "phobia" of muzzling a dog, I don't actually believe such a bizarre phobia exists tbh and I also stated in another post that if it were my dog, it would be muzzled.
> As it happens, my childhood dog was muzzled every single time she was walked.
> 
> ...


I am saying that responsible owners muzzle their dogs if need be.

While I do think that people should have control of their dogs, the reality is that many will run up to other dogs - that is reality. I fail to see why they should expect to be killed if they do so which seems to be the opinion of many on here!

If you own a dog that is likely to cause damage to other dogs/humans, then you have to take responsibility for that and in some cases that may require muzzling the dog. While the owner _should _have control and not allow their dog/puppy to run up to strange dogs, however, if they do, I DON'T accept that it is their fault if they are killed. We live in a country where millions of dogs are kept as pets, few will have much training so owners of dog aggressive dogs have the responsiblity to ensure their dogs will not cause harm.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> I have never really understood that viewpoint if I'm honest. I mean if I have to break up a dog fight at all, I would much rather have to deal with one aggressor than have two dogs going at it...If your (general you) dog is likely to use his teeth (especially to the extent in the OP) then the last thing you want is for him to feel the need to defend himself IMHO


Very true.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I am saying that responsible owners muzzle their dogs if need be.
> 
> While I do think that people should have control of their dogs, the reality is that many will run up to other dogs - that is reality. I fail to see why they should expect to be killed if they do so which seems to be the opinion of many on here!
> 
> If you own a dog that is likely to cause damage to other dogs/humans, then you have to take responsibility for that and in some cases that may require muzzling the dog. While the owner _should _have control and not allow their dog/puppy to run up to strange dogs, however, if they do, I DON'T accept that it is their fault if they are killed. We live in a country where millions of dogs are kept as pets, few will have much training so owners of dog aggressive dogs have the responsiblity to ensure their dogs will not cause harm.


Again, I have at no stage said people with DA dogs shouldn't muzzle them. I have at no stage said I wouldn't take responsibility for an aggressive dog by muzzling it. I have at no stage said an out of control dog should expect to be killed so I fail to see how any of this is relevant to my original post that you seemed so unimpressed with. Like I already explained to you, I AGREE WITH YOU AND HAVE NO ISSUES MUZZLING A DOG IF NEEDED


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> I have never really understood that viewpoint if I'm honest. I mean if I have to break up a dog fight at all, I would much rather have to deal with one aggressor than have two dogs going at it...If your (general you) dog is likely to use his teeth (especially to the extent in the OP) then the last thing you want is for him to feel the need to defend himself IMHO


A muzzled dog isn't as defenceless as people seem to think anyway. Rupert had an adult male Doberman pinned and screaming underneath him despite the fact he was muzzled. Dog was bruised but not badly injured.

I don't say that to brag, I'm certainly not proud of it. I say it because I constantly see people saying they won't muzzle because it means their dog is defenceless. I also know plenty of other people who've had dogs terrified and injured by muzzled dogs. Usually ones who have been let off leash muzzled under the assumption that a muzzle stops them hurting anything.

And yes, it's a hell of a lot easier to break up a fight when you've only got one set of teeth to worry about.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sarah1983 said:


> A muzzled dog isn't as defenceless as people seem to think anyway. Rupert had an adult male Doberman pinned and screaming underneath him despite the fact he was muzzled. Dog was bruised but not badly injured.
> 
> I don't say that to brag, I'm certainly not proud of it. I say it because I constantly see people saying they won't muzzle because it means their dog is defenceless. I also know plenty of other people who've had dogs terrified and injured by muzzled dogs. Usually ones who have been let off leash muzzled under the assumption that a muzzle stops them hurting anything.
> 
> And yes, it's a hell of a lot easier to break up a fight when you've only got one set of teeth to worry about.


This is very true, a dog can still do a lot of damage with a muzzle on, they just can't use their teeth, at least in any major way.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> I am saying that responsible owners muzzle their dogs if need be.
> 
> While I do think that people should have control of their dogs, the reality is that many will run up to other dogs - that is reality. I fail to see why they should expect to be killed if they do so which seems to be the opinion of many on here!
> 
> If you own a dog that is likely to cause damage to other dogs/humans, then you have to take responsibility for that and in some cases that may require muzzling the dog. While the owner _should _have control and not allow their dog/puppy to run up to strange dogs, however, if they do, I DON'T accept that it is their fault if they are killed. We live in a country where millions of dogs are kept as pets, few will have much training so owners of dog aggressive dogs have the responsiblity to ensure their dogs will not cause harm.


No one said anything about they should expect to be killed so certainly not the opinion of many! Not one person has said they wouldn't muzzle a dog they knew would cause damage! No one! The objection was muzzling dogs of a certain size just in case, and that it shouldn't just be acceptable for people to allow their dogs to run riot and out of control in a public place!


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Surely muzzling comes down to how well you can manage particular situations though and/or weighing up the pros/cons of where you walk. For example, I don't muzzle Missy who is is DA. But as she's easy to manage being small enough to pick up if needs be I don't feel a muzzle will really add any extra level of precaution that I can't already provide myself, if that makes sense. Since moving we also walk in relative seclusion and we avoid areas likely to be dog populated. If she was HA or able enough to kill another dog with relative ease then I'd muzzle her in 'public' places. But I don't think muzzling is necessary for every DA dog depending on the circumstances/owners ability to manage their dog.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> I am saying that responsible owners muzzle their dogs if need be.
> 
> While I do think that people should have control of their dogs, the reality is that many will run up to other dogs - that is reality. I fail to see why they should expect to be killed if they do so which seems to be the opinion of many on here!
> 
> If you own a dog that is likely to cause damage to other dogs/humans, then you have to take responsibility for that and in some cases that may require muzzling the dog. While the owner _should _have control and not allow their dog/puppy to run up to strange dogs, however, if they do, I DON'T accept that it is their fault if they are killed. We live in a country where millions of dogs are kept as pets, few will have much training so owners of dog aggressive dogs have the responsiblity to ensure their dogs will not cause harm.


Got it now.

So, if I let my dog/puppy run loose in the park and she runs out onto the main road and is run over, who is to blame? Me or the driver of the car? Surely he should have been driving at five miles an hour just in case a dog ran out in front of him?

Can't be my fault. Not my responsibility to have control over what my dog does, according to you. She should be able to act as she pleases and it's the responsibility of others to ensure her safety.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Meezey said:


> No one said anything about they should expect to be killed so certainly not the opinion of many! Not one person has said they wouldn't muzzle a dog they knew would cause damage! No one! The objection was muzzling dogs of a certain size just in case, and that it shouldn't just be acceptable for people to allow their dogs to run riot and out of control in a public place!


It's a long post so I'm not going to reread it but I was referring to the comments putting the blame on the jack russell as it should have been under control and was at fault for running up to the malamute. And there were several mentions about not putting a muzzle on.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Sweety said:


> Got it now.
> 
> So, if I let my dog/puppy run loose in the park and she runs out onto the main road and is run over, who is to blame? Me or the driver of the car? Surely he should have been driving at five miles an hour just in case a dog ran out in front of him?
> 
> Can't be my fault. Not my responsibility to have control over what my dog does, according to you. She should be able to act as she pleases and it's the responsibility of others to ensure her safety.


That depends.. What size is the car and was the car muzzled? Does the car own its own home or just rent?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> It's a long post so I'm not going to reread it but I was referring to the comments putting the blame on the jack russell as it should have been under control and was at fault for running up to the malamute. And there were several mentions about not putting a muzzle on.


The JRT shouldn't have been allowed to run up to the Mal? Not sure why you think it should be okay to allow it? The JRT was at fault allowing it to do so.

Yes when reference was made to larger dogs being muzzled just in case!


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> It's a long post so I'm not going to reread it but I was referring to the comments putting the blame on the jack russell as it should have been under control and was at fault for running up to the malamute. And there were several mentions about not putting a muzzle on.


I genuinely don't recall seeing any comments about not putting a muzzle on where it's needed it but I may have missed it. I most definitely don't recall anyone blaming the JRT. The blame was on the JRT owner who sadly didn't have his dog under control.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Got it now.
> 
> So, if I let my dog/puppy run loose in the park and she runs out onto the main road and is run over, who is to blame? Me or the driver of the car? Surely he should have been driving at five miles an hour just in case a dog ran out in front of him?
> 
> Can't be my fault. Not my responsibility to have control over what my dog does, according to you. She should be able to act as she pleases and it's the responsibility of others to ensure her safety.


Now you're being ridiculous. There's a big difference between letting a dog running up to another dog and letting a dog run into the road!

Personally, I prefer if people keep there dogs under control. Mine have no interest in playing/greeting however, I also expect my dogs to take a strange dog running up to play reasonably, not kill it.

For many, part of having a dog is to be sociable - don't we constantly say we should socialise our dogs? Most dogs are at least tolerant and many want to interact with other dogs. Of course, everyone should have their perfect dogs under control at all times - but life isn't like that. If you have a dangerous dog you have responsibility to keep it and others safe.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Meezey said:


> *The JRT shouldn't have been allowed to run up to the Mal? Not sure why you think it should be okay to allow it? The JRT was at fault allowing it to do so. *
> 
> Yes when reference was made to larger dogs being muzzled just in case!


My point was that that doesn't justify it being killed - that is the responsibility of the malamute owner. And if they have a dog that would do that they should have it muzzled.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Nettles said:


> I genuinely don't recall seeing any comments about not putting a muzzle on where it's needed it but I may have missed it. I most definitely don't recall anyone blaming the JRT. The blame was on the JRT owner who sadly didn't have his dog under control.


Owner or dog, the Mals owner has to take some responsibility - the mal may have been on the lead, but it clearly wasn't under control if it managed to kill a dog.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> My point was that that doesn't justify it being killed - that is the responsibility of the malamute owner. And if they have a dog that would do that they should have it muzzled.


No one said it did? No one said the Mal owner did not have any responsibilities in the accident? You don't know if it was the first time it ever happened, you don't know if the JRT attacked the Mal, neither does the OP because like you and all of us they weren't there. Hence the full circle of why should dogs of a certain size be muzzled just in case but its perfectly acceptable for dog's to be off lead out of control in a public area?


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> Owner or dog, the Mals owner has to take some responsibility - the mal may have been on the lead, but it clearly wasn't under control if it managed to kill a dog.


You're really not getting my point at all.

If the Mal had shown any form of DA before and the owner hadn't muzzled it then yes, he would share responsibility.
If the Mal had not shown any form of DA before, then I really do not understand how you think he could have prevented it from happening unless he muzzled it "just in case"

As none of us know which of these is true, we cannot put definite blame onto the Mal owner. And the fact that he was not fined/prosecuted/forced to muzzle the dog in public in the future leads me to believe he was not at fault.

The only "fact" we do know is that the JRT was allowed to approach a working Mal, on a lead, pulling a bike. In the eyes of the law, the JRT was not under the control of its owner. There lies a fault!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Nettles said:


> You're really not getting my point at all.
> 
> If the Mal had shown any form of DA before and the owner hadn't muzzled it then yes, he would share responsibility.
> If the Mal had not shown any form of DA before, then I really do not understand how you think he could have prevented it from happening unless he muzzled it "just in case"
> ...


It is not that the malamute wasn't muzzled at the time, it was the fact that he refused to muzzle it even after it had killed a dog. So clearly he is not under control sufficiently, even though he may be on a lead!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> It is not that the malamute wasn't muzzled at the time, it was the fact that he refused to muzzle it even after it had killed a dog. So clearly he is not under control sufficiently, even though he may be on a lead!


You don't know that! OP doesn't either considering again they weren't there? Firstly OP said police weren't interested at all! Then suddenly a visit and the man who just moved there and God forbid rents and doesn't speak the the neighbours is refusing to muzzle and pinning his dog to walls to save others!!!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Meezey said:


> You don't know that! OP doesn't either considering again they weren't there? Firstly OP said police weren't interested at all! Then suddenly a visit and the man who just moved there and God forbid rents and doesn't speak the the neighbours is refusing to muzzle and pinning his dog to walls to save others!!!


I don't know that an JRT ran up to a Mal and was killed I wasn't there either - I'm going by what the OP said, if it is not to believed then it puts doubt that a dog was killed - are you saying the OP is a troll. You either take what they say at face value or you don't.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Nettles said:


> You're really not getting my point at all.
> 
> If the Mal had shown any form of DA before and the owner hadn't muzzled it then yes, he would share responsibility.
> If the Mal had not shown any form of DA before, then I really do not understand how you think he could have prevented it from happening unless he muzzled it "just in case"
> ...


Sorry to split hairs - I agree with your first two paragraphs but not the bolded. We don't actually know the JRT was allowed to approach the Mal, the JRT might and I am just saying "Might" have been walking along a path minding its own business when the Mal pulling the bike came up behind it or towards it. It "Might" have been a totally unprovoked attack and we are just assuming the JRT was out of control and ran up to the Mal.


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> It is not that the malamute wasn't muzzled at the time, it was the fact that he refused to muzzle it even after it had killed a dog. So clearly he is not under control sufficiently, even though he may be on a lead!


But nobody knows why it isn't muzzled because nobody was there at the police visit...

It took me a week to muzzle train Brock well enough that I was happy taking him out in it and he'd be fine and he's a dog who was already used to a headcollar and a very quick learner.

In that week though, he was walked unmuzzled because he still needed exercise.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2015)

Sweety said:


> Got it now.
> 
> So, if I let my dog/puppy run loose in the park and she runs out onto the main road and is run over, who is to blame? Me or the driver of the car? Surely he should have been driving at five miles an hour just in case a dog ran out in front of him?
> 
> Can't be my fault. Not my responsibility to have control over what my dog does, according to you. She should be able to act as she pleases and it's the responsibility of others to ensure her safety.


That's actually a very good analogy.

But let's change it up just a hair 
Keep the puppy running out in the road, but make the car a high powered one with an inept driver. Make it so that there was room/opportunity to stop, but the driver's lack of knowledge impeded him from doing so.

IOW:
If I know my dog can behave dangerously, it's my responsibility to take precautions (regardless of the dog's size). If I can't control my dog, that's on me, period.

However if a small puppy runs up to my great dane, and my great dane play bows and accidentally thumps the puppy with a giant clodhopper paw and breaks the puppy's neck in the process, I'm going to feel absolutely horrible about it, but I'm not going to take additional precautions with my large dog because of a freak accident.

And the bottom line here is, we don't KNOW what the whole situation was. Sure, when you hear hooves think horses not zebras, so it's a fair guess that the malamute has some dog intolerance that went OTT, but that still doesn't excuse someone letting their dog run up to a dog who's attached to an owner out biking. Hell of a way to learn that letting your dog run up to another may not be the wisest thing though. However annoying I find loose dogs, I feel for the JRT owner. And the Malamute owner, must be horrible for both....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> I don't know that an JRT ran up to a Mal and was killed I wasn't there either - I'm going by what the OP said, if it is not to believed then it puts doubt that a dog was killed - are you saying the OP is a troll. You either take what they say at face value or you don't.


I don't given they weren't there, given their previous posts given their "friend," joined to tell us all his wonderful the street was ,( clearly not from OP's) other thread! I have no doubt a poor dog died, but other than that all else is just OP's spin on it as they weren't there its rather like a tabloid story, only ones who know the FACTS are the JRT owner and the Mal owner and you can bet they will both tell a different story and it will be equally traumatic for both of them.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sorry to split hairs - I agree with your first two paragraphs but not the bolded. We don't actually know the JRT was allowed to approach the Mal, the JRT might and I am just saying "Might" have been walking along a path minding its own business when the Mal pulling the bike came up behind it or towards it. It "Might" have been a totally unprovoked attack and we are just assuming the JRT was out of control and ran up to the Mal.


Apologies, you're right! I genuinely believed I had read that the JRT was off lead and approached the Mal. I guess from the OP's comment that the JRT was friendly and not aggressive.. I didn't think "friendly and not aggressive" was relevant to mention if it was a dog on lead, minding its own business.. then again it wasn't relevant to mention the Mal owner only rents a property either but OP seemed to think it was..
If it was (hypothetically) an unprovoked attack where the JRT was on a lead minding its own business and attacked by the passing Mal, would the police/dog warden etc not do more in that instance and insist that the dog be muzzled in future?
My late grandfather in laws JRT attacked and injured another dog (unprovoked) Both were on leads as it was beside a busy carriageway and the dog had to be muzzled from then on. My grandfather in law was told if the dog was seen out without the muzzle, it would be removed from his care.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> It is not that the malamute wasn't muzzled at the time, it was the fact that he refused to muzzle it even after it had killed a dog. So clearly he is not under control sufficiently, even though he may be on a lead!


I don't understand why you keep replying to me with things that have no relevance to what I have said!
How does ANYTHING you have just explained mean the Mal owner has to take responsibilty for the original incident?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

There are a hell of a lot of people with dogs who have caused damage to others who refuse to muzzle. Because they don't want their dog to look vicious. Because they don't want their dog to be defenceless. Because a muzzle is punishing their dog. Because their dog won't be able to enjoy walks wearing a muzzle. The excuses are endless. Lots won't even keep them on leash let alone take extra precautions such as muzzles and avoidance. I'm on a lot of reactive dog groups so perhaps see more than you do on general groups and forums.

End of the day, if you have a dog who is a danger to others then imo it should be muzzled in public. Regardless of where you walk, how well you think you can manage the environment or what size or breed your dog is. Obviously it takes time to introduce a muzzle but in that time you can certainly do a lot to avoid encountering others.

Talking in general here, not about this specific case as we have no idea what's really gone on, whether hte Mal owner is actually refusing to muzzle or what.


----------



## Little P (Jun 10, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> *Surely muzzling comes down to how well you can manage particular situations though and/or weighing up the pros/cons of where you walk*. For example, I don't muzzle Missy who is is DA. But as she's easy to manage being small enough to pick up if needs be I don't feel a muzzle will really add any extra level of precaution that I can't already provide myself, if that makes sense. Since moving we also walk in relative seclusion and we avoid areas likely to be dog populated. If she was HA or able enough to kill another dog with relative ease then I'd muzzle her in 'public' places. But I don't think muzzling is necessary for every DA dog depending on the circumstances/owners ability to manage their dog.


I agree  I have a dog reactive dog (I say reactive as opposed to aggressive as he will happily pass other dogs in close proximity, even have a polite sniff hello and go on his way IF they are polite dogs with good social skills). He's been this way for around 10-11 years now and he has never bitten another dog. Growled, yes. Bared teeth, yes. Air snapped, yes. But never bitten. And the only reason for that is because of how I manage situations. He isn't muzzled on a day to day basis. I will use a muzzle if we can't avoid somewhere busy though, just because people give him a wide berth!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Nettles said:


> Apologies, you're right! *I genuinely believed I had read that the JRT was off lead and approached the Mal*. I guess from the OP's comment that the JRT was friendly and not aggressive.. I didn't think "friendly and not aggressive" was relevant to mention if it was a dog on lead, minding its own business.. then again it wasn't relevant to mention the Mal owner only rents a property either but OP seemed to think it was..
> If it was (hypothetically) an unprovoked attack where the JRT was on a lead minding its own business and attacked by the passing Mal, would the police/dog warden etc not do more in that instance and insist that the dog be muzzled in future?
> My late grandfather in laws JRT attacked and injured another dog (unprovoked) Both were on leads as it was beside a busy carriageway and the dog had to be muzzled from then on. My grandfather in law was told if the dog was seen out without the muzzle, it would be removed from his care.


This was how I read it, too. Haven't gone back to check the text but it looks as though you have. The whole of that original post screamed "JRT runs up to malamute" even if the words didn't say it. And at no point had OP stated "No - both dogs were on lead, JRT was minding its own business . . " etc. If that's so it puts a completely different complexion on the matter.

And TBH if I had a dog that attacked and killed another out of the blue, for no apparent reason, particularly if the other dog was leashed and hadn't approached it, then it would have it PTS (assuming it proved healthy and there was no medical reason) because I would feel that I couldn't relax with it anywhere.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I have to say that after this thread I have now realised just how much work the "Muzzled up" project has in front of them. I really wish this stigma around muzzles would just bugger off.

A muzzled dog is not an unhappy dog so long as the dog has been introduced to the muzzle correctly...a muzzle is no more harsh than any other piece of equipment that we use for our dogs..If your dog is likely to use teeth to settle a dispute, then the dog needs muzzling whilst out in public - management can only take you so far IMHO

Thai has never used his teeth whilst he has been in my care, BUT I know full well that Thai is willing to use his teeth if he feels the need too, so with that in mind he gets muzzled if the situation calls for it.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Nettles said:


> I don't understand why you keep replying to me with things that have no relevance to what I have said!
> How does ANYTHING you have just explained mean the Mal owner has to take responsibilty for the original incident?


It's not being suggested the Mal owner is responsible for the 1st incident, just that he probably needs to take responsibility to prevent a repeat. (Gosh what a horrible sentence).

And to repeat myself, I'm not entirely ready to blame the "elderly" Jrt owner either. For all I know they got passed unexpectedly by an exciting/scary Mal bike combo and his dog predictably gave chase for a few seconds - I know it's not something I've "proofed" against - that's not a fault - just horribly unfortunate.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

lostbear said:


> This was how I read it, too. Haven't gone back to check the text but it looks as though you have. The whole of that original post screamed "JRT runs up to malamute" even if the words didn't say it. And at no point had OP stated "No - both dogs were on lead, JRT was minding its own business . . " etc. If that's so it puts a completely different complexion on the matter.
> 
> And TBH if I had a dog that attacked and killed another out of the blue, for no apparent reason, particularly if the other dog was leashed and hadn't approached it, then it would have it PTS (assuming it proved healthy and there was no medical reason) because I would feel that I couldn't relax with it anywhere.


I had a quick look back but it appears "JRT off lead" was never mentioned by the OP.. Plenty of people asked OP if that was the case but I couldn't find a reply that said yes.
IMO though, if the JRT was on a lead, the OP would have stated so and the police/dog warden would have done more in that scenario but again, that's just my opinion.
I have to agree, I think I would have my dog PTS if it killed a leased dog in a completely unprovoked attack. I wonder how common/rare unprovoked killings actually are...


----------



## tabulahrasa (Nov 4, 2012)

Nettles said:


> I had a quick look back but it appears "JRT off lead" was never mentioned by the OP.. Plenty of people asked OP if that was the case but I couldn't find a reply that said yes.
> IMO though, if the JRT was on a lead, the OP would have stated so and the police/dog warden would have done more in that scenario but again, that's just my opinion.
> I have to agree, I think I would have my dog PTS if it killed a leased dog in a completely unprovoked attack. I wonder how common/rare unprovoked killings actually are...


It's in the OP.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Nettles said:


> I had a quick look back but it appears "JRT off lead" was never mentioned by the OP.. Plenty of people asked OP if that was the case but I couldn't find a reply that said yes.
> IMO though, if the JRT was on a lead, the OP would have stated so and the police/dog warden would have done more in that scenario but again, that's just my opinion.
> I have to agree, I think I would have my dog PTS if it killed a leased dog in a completely unprovoked attack. I wonder how common/rare unprovoked killings actually are...


A dog doesn't necessarily need to be 'provoked' into attacking - have a read about predatory drift. I have witnessed it myself, when an escaped Greyhound calmly trotted towards a small Poodle and ragged it.....no provocation involved. I also know of a lady who's on-lead Dachshund was grabbed and ragged by an on-lead Greyhound, again no provocation.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Sosha said:


> It's not being suggested the Mal owner is responsible for the 1st incident, just that he probably needs to take responsibility to prevent a repeat


My phone won't let me quote more than one comment at a time so I've screen shot the posts I am referring to.
















It actually "is" being suggested that the Mal owner was responsible for the first incident. Like you and many many many many others have said, I also believe he needs to muzzle the dog to prevent something like that in the future but without knowing why it happened in the first place, I refuse to accept he was responsible for the first incident if the Mal showed no previous DA.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

tabulahrasa said:


> It's in the OP.


I was sure I read it but was told I hadn't. I couldn't find it anywhere last night! Found it now. Thank you.


----------



## Sosha (Jan 11, 2013)

Nettles said:


> My phone won't let me quote more than one comment at a time so I've screen shot the posts I am referring to.
> View attachment 242581
> View attachment 242582
> 
> ...


See we're reading these differently - I'm reading it as "they now have a responsibility" ie - going forward. And if a dog of mine killed a dog/ neighbours cat while on lead, then I wouldn't consider I had adequate control - I'd change things. I don't actually think you're disagreeing with each other.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Sosha said:


> See we're reading these differently - I'm reading it as "they now have a responsibility" ie - going forward. And if a dog of mine killed a dog/ neighbours cat while on lead, then I wouldn't consider I had adequate control - I'd change things. I don't actually think you're disagreeing with each other.


In the context of quite a few of my posts that rocco replied to, I had stated on numerous occasions that I personally would use a muzzle if needed and think that the Mal owner should muzzle in the future. To then reply to me about "muzzle phobias" and "Mal owner taking responsibilty for the first incident" I think we are disagreeing with each other.


----------



## trio25 (Jul 1, 2014)

tabulahrasa said:


> I wouldn't walk there... In fact I live near a canal, I never go near it because the paths aren't wide enough...well I suppose I could jump in to avoid people, lol


Compared to where I walk that is a wide path! I have little choice but narrow paths, but I tend to go to quiet places. I do find it annoying when I'm holding my boy who can be a little reactive away other owners don't do anything and ignore their dog.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sarah1983 said:


> There are a hell of a lot of people with dogs who have caused damage to others who refuse to muzzle. Because they don't want their dog to look vicious. Because they don't want their dog to be defenceless. Because a muzzle is punishing their dog. Because their dog won't be able to enjoy walks wearing a muzzle. The excuses are endless. Lots won't even keep them on leash let alone take extra precautions such as muzzles and avoidance. I'm on a lot of reactive dog groups so perhaps see more than you do on general groups and forums.
> 
> End of the day, if you have a dog who is a danger to others then imo it should be muzzled in public. Regardless of where you walk, how well you think you can manage the environment or what size or breed your dog is. Obviously it takes time to introduce a muzzle but in that time you can certainly do a lot to avoid encountering others.
> 
> Talking in general here, not about this specific case as we have no idea what's really gone on, whether hte Mal owner is actually refusing to muzzle or what.


3 dogs near us ganged up and ran up to an on lead small dog and ripped it up. It did survive but only just. One of the dogs had already put a few dogs to the vets as well as killing other pets. The council welfare officer said it must be kept on the lead and I believe muzzled though I could be wrong on that. I was told by the welfare officer but I have a dreadful memory. Anyway all 3 dogs are still walked together off lead and no sign of a muzzle on the real culprit. The owner of the ripped up dog was new to the area and did not want to cause waves so it was not pursued as far as it could have been. See, being new to an area can work both ways!

I am not sure why everyone is imagining the JR ran up to the malamute. Picture this scenario. Malamute on longish lead attached to a bike - how exactly is that under control. Well behaved small dog trotting along in front of their owner, off lead, on the path. As they pass malamute lunges and gets hold of small dog. That is how I pictured it happening when I read the OP. I did not know bikes were allowed in parks anyway.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Just to be clear I didn't say the JRT wasn't off lead in my post above I said we don't know that it approached the Mal or chased the Mal and that it could have been walking along a path (on or off lead) minding its own business at the time. There are many scenarios of how it might have happened but we don't know and I doubt we ever will know so I think we need to be just as careful about laying the blame at the JRT owner's door as we do about blaming the Mal owner.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Picture this scenario.


The MIB did it and used the neuroliser... You see that is the issue. We only have one limited side of the story and like many, I do have experience with small off lead dogs which does provide bias on my side. On this forum there are arguments every time it's brought up but small dogs are still dogs, not simply cute as they couldn't do any harm which is an attitude which is too common.

Unless we had far more information my opinion is that both owners need to accept some responsibility. Whilst I approve of muzzling the dog to prevent a repetition, I do not approve of someone being encouraged to simply sticking a muzzle on a dog without allowance for the dog getting used to it.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> *3 dogs near us ganged up and ran up to an on lead small dog and ripped it up.* It did survive but only just. One of the dogs had already put a few dogs to the vets as well as killing other pets. The council welfare officer said it must be kept on the lead and I believe muzzled though I could be wrong on that. I was told by the welfare officer but I have a dreadful memory. Anyway* all 3 dogs are still walked together off lead and no sign of a muzzle on the real culprit.* The owner of the ripped up dog was new to the area and did not want to cause waves so it was not pursued as far as it could have been. See, being new to an area can work both ways!
> .


This is horrendous! That owner obviously takes no responsibility for their dogs' behaviour at all - I would be removed to go to the police and say that the dogs had threatened mine and I was afraid for my own safety - because TBH, I _would _feel threatened and afraid if i saw that lot coming towards me after the incident that occurred. It is frightening how many people think it is alright for their dogs to kill and maim, as long as it doesn;t impact on them personally.

Pity the other owner didn't pursue him through the courts.


----------



## Icy (Aug 28, 2015)

*Now you're being ridiculous. There's a big difference between letting a dog running up to another dog and letting a dog run into the road!

Personally, I prefer if people keep there dogs under control. Mine have no interest in playing/greeting however, I also expect my dogs to take a strange dog running up to play reasonably, not kill it.

For many, part of having a dog is to be sociable - don't we constantly say we should socialise our dogs? Most dogs are at least tolerant and many want to interact with other dogs. Of course, everyone should have their perfect dogs under control at all times - but life isn't like that. If you have a dangerous dog you have responsibility to keep it and others safe.*

I believe the JRt had already been run down when his owner allowed him to walk off lead on the pavement and it ran out onto the road.. This is not the action of a responsible owner.

No dog should be allowed to run up to another dog without both owners' approval...this is one of the main problems and the cause of many dog fights.

All of us want sociable dogs but many of us don't have dogs who will tolerate others' rude manners and behaviour. Lucky you to have such dogs..Yes we may socialise them but events happen to scare dogs who then become defensive..wouldn't you? And many dogs are rescues with a history of abuse and need careful handling..a work in progress. Its not all about socialising.

So many judgemental comments from ppl here who think they know all about dogs when they have probably just owned an easy one.

It is also worth noting in this incident that it has been mentioned the mal owner is "just renting"..what the hell does this have to do with it? Snobbery?

tbh...I think its some of the people here who are in need of help, not just the mal who was on lead and according to the police...under control. However my sympathies are also with the jrt owner..even if he was an irresponsible dog owner who should have kept his dog under control..it must still hurt


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Icy said:


> *Now you're being ridiculous. There's a big difference between letting a dog running up to another dog and letting a dog run into the road!
> 
> Personally, I prefer if people keep there dogs under control. Mine have no interest in playing/greeting however, I also expect my dogs to take a strange dog running up to play reasonably, not kill it.
> 
> ...


Quite a lot of generalisations and assumptions on your part there if you don't mind me saying. I have read pretty much all of the thread although granted over several days so I may have missed or forgotten something but I don't remember reading anyone mention the ethnicity of the Mal owner - please can you link to that post or provide the post number.

How do you know how many dogs people on here have owned and whether they are easy or not? there are plenty of members on here who have owned multiple dogs and multiple rescue dogs too and dogs with various behavioural issues but what has that got to do with this case?

Your last statement about the JRT owner "even if he was an irresponsible dog owner who should have kept his dog under control" is as judgemental if not more so than many of the posts on this thread. How do you know his dog wasn't under control? were you there?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Icy said:


> *Now you're being ridiculous. There's a big difference between letting a dog running up to another dog and letting a dog run into the road!
> 
> Personally, I prefer if people keep there dogs under control. Mine have no interest in playing/greeting however, I also expect my dogs to take a strange dog running up to play reasonably, not kill it.
> 
> ...


Who the hell are you. Why would you join just to make odd remarks on a contentious thread. I take it you know the Mal owner (or are the Mal owner) or at least know but do not like the JR owner.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

QUOTE="Icy, post: 1064286298, member: 1428521]

I believe the JRt had already been run down when his owner allowed him to walk off lead on the pavement and it ran out onto the road.. This is not the action of a responsible owner.

How do you know that?

No dog should be allowed to run up to another dog without both owners' approval...this is one of the main problems and the cause of many dog fights.

Oh please. Of course in an ideal world no dog should ever go up to another one, but dogs are sociable creatures and, single dogs particularly, will love the interaction with other dogs.

All of us want sociable dogs but many of us don't have dogs who will tolerate others' rude manners and behaviour. Lucky you to have such dogs..Yes we may socialise them but events happen to scare dogs who then become defensive..wouldn't you? And many dogs are rescues with a history of abuse and need careful handling..a work in progress. Its not all about socialising.

And if that's the case it is down to the owner to manage them, including where and how they take them out..

So many judgemental comments from ppl here who think they know all about dogs when they have probably just owned an easy one.

I can assure you have have owned a great deal more than one dog, I have fostered problem dogs too!

It is also worth noting in this incident that it has been mentioned the mal owner is "just renting"..what the hell does this have to do with it? Snobbery?
And one of the neighbours also said...he is not of white ethicity...jeez!!

tbh...I think its some of the people here who are in need of help, not just the mal who was on lead and according to the police...under control. However my sympathies are also with the jrt owner..even if he was an irresponsible dog owner who should have kept his dog under control..it must still hurt [/QUOTE]

A dog that kills another is not under control. Mals are known to be intolerant of other dogs and are large powerful dogs. The owner of the mal was irresponsible not to consider that. I'm not sure I pay too much heed by what police say, most don't seem to know much about dog law anyway.

I have no idea why you have come on here, but if you do know the mal owner, then there is no excuse not to muzzle a dog that has killed another.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Icy said:


> So many judgemental comments from ppl here.
> 
> I think its some of the people here who are in need of help


1st post. No manners and an irony.

Boy! Am I going to enjoy this ride.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Icy said:


> *Now you're being ridiculous. There's a big difference between letting a dog running up to another dog and letting a dog run into the road!
> 
> Personally, I prefer if people keep there dogs under control. Mine have no interest in playing/greeting however, I also expect my dogs to take a strange dog running up to play reasonably, not kill it.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I've been confusing when you get your alerts - I hit like instead of reply by mistake.

I haven't seen anything re: the ethnicity of either dog owner - can you reference the post, please? Nor have I seen anything about the JRT having been involved in a car accident previously, but this is a long thread and stuff gets missed.

Also, I think that we do all sympathise with the owner of the JRT - I know I do; but at the same time, although you consider us judgemental, a lot of people have said that

1) We do not know the circumstances

2) IF - and it's a big IF - the mal had a history of DA, then the owner should take appropriate measures

3) IF - another IF - the JRT had rushed, barking or in any other way been "in the mal's face" then a lot, if not all, of the blame lies with the JRT owner, who has learned a horrible lesson in the worst possible way.

And I would add, that while some dogs are easier to train than others, the only way to "own an easy one" is to put the work in - and continue putting the work in as long as the dog lives.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Zaros said:


> 1st post. No manners and an irony.
> 
> Boy! Am I going to enjoy this ride.


Grab your socks!!!!!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

lostbear said:


> Grab your socks!!!!!


Now, now LB. I didn't have hold of anything else.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Icy said:


> *Now you're being ridiculous. There's a big difference between letting a dog running up to another dog and letting a dog run into the road!
> 
> Personally, I prefer if people keep there dogs under control. Mine have no interest in playing/greeting however, I also expect my dogs to take a strange dog running up to play reasonably, not kill it.
> 
> ...


Might have been nice if you had bothered to introduce yourself before you started flinging insults and accusations around.

It's lovely that you've taken the trouble to turn up and tell us all where we fall short as human beings when you could simply have given us links to relevant phrases in the Bible.

I'm particularly impressed by your sentence in which you accuse many of us of being judgemental and then you make the sweeping judgement that most of us have only ever owned one easy dog.


----------



## cabot (Jul 2, 2011)

Looks like he or his dog has got away with it from the police angle however they have passed on the information they hold on to the local council who have taken a very keen interest in the situation . Not least because there are something like 20 small dogs in the immediate vicinity of 300 metres. The owner as I say has point blank refused to muzzle the dog and the whole street are up in arms about it. I should point out an elderly lady in her eighties was in tears at what happened. She owns a small terrier type dog and used to socialise dogs for the blind and wont go past her front gates with her dog whom she used to walk regularly.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I thought, under the new DDA rules, the council could impose limitations, including muzzle, etc. If an owner failed to comply then they could risk the dog being seized? (Goes off to check the DDA )

Just had a quick look and it only seems to refer to a dog that harms a person.


----------



## cabot (Jul 2, 2011)

Incidently it seems that the dog was attached to the rear frame of a bike with its lead. Not sure if that's considered keeping it under control but I leave it open to debate.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2015)

cabot said:


> Incidently it seems that the dog was attached to the rear frame of a bike with its lead. Not sure if that's considered keeping it under control but I leave it open to debate.


Was the bike in motion do you know? 
I'm trying to figure out how the JRT and malamute got close enough to each other for one to kill the other.


----------



## cabot (Jul 2, 2011)

It seems that the malamute was being pulled behind the bike on a footpath / bridleway coming out of the park so there wasn't much room to keep them apart. Two of them met and the rest is history. I'm surprised of the claims made by the malamute owner who said his dog is very disciplined and that the owner couldn't have done more to intervene.


----------



## cabot (Jul 2, 2011)

The malamute had the JRT off the ground in its mouth and was thrashing it about the place like a rag doll.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cabot said:


> Incidently it seems that the dog was attached to the rear frame of a bike with its lead. Not sure if that's considered keeping it under control but I leave it open to debate.


That does suggest a lack of control - TBH I would think it was dangerous for the owner - I wouldn't like to be riding a bike with the risk that my dog could pull it over or even unbalance it. I'm surprised that anyone would exercise a dog like this.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cabot said:


> The malamute had the JRT off the ground in its mouth and was thrashing it about the place like a rag doll.


Again were you there? You keep avoiding this question?


----------



## cabot (Jul 2, 2011)

I heard it from a third party who gave him a blanket to wrap the dead dog in.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

lostbear said:


> That does suggest a lack of control - TBH I would think it was dangerous for the owner - I wouldn't like to be riding a bike with the risk that my dog could pull it over or even unbalance it. I'm surprised that anyone would exercise a dog like this.


We don't know he was! This thread is really starting to annoy me as is the OP!

It's all seemingly until they need to add a bit of sympathy and play on peoples emotions!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

cabot said:


> I heard it from a third party who gave him a blanket to wrap the dead dog in.


So you heard it from a 3rd party! You weren't there, you didn't even hear it from the owner, you weren't there and haven't even heard it from the owner!! Stirring!! Did you go to the Press about your neighbour btw? Have a feeling you might also be Icy and Ms Perkins but hey!!!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Meezey said:


> We don't know he was! This thread is really starting to annoy me as is the OP!
> 
> It's all seemingly until they need to add a bit of sympathy and play on peoples emotions!


why are you so keen to disbelieve someone who has at least second hand knowledge which is a lot more than anyone else has. One assumes the person that gave the owner a blanket was either on the spot or got a first hand description of what happened. I can understand not believing newspaper articles but not to believe someone with local knowledge seems beyond the pale to me.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> why are you so keen to disbelieve someone who has at least second hand knowledge which is a lot more than anyone else has. One assumes the person that gave the owner a blanket was either on the spot or got a first hand description of what happened. I can understand not believing newspaper articles but not to believe someone with local knowledge seems beyond the pale to me.


It is just like the Newspaper article.. More fool you if you don't see that. Second hand info from a 3rd party, yeah really reliable. I do believe a poor dog died but that's all I believe. Given the OP is so keen to run to the press and judge their other neighbours they are the last person I'd believe everything is "seemingly" till they want to give graphic details to embellish their tale...


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2015)

cabot said:


> It seems that the malamute was being pulled behind the bike on a footpath / bridleway coming out of the park so there wasn't much room to keep them apart. Two of them met and the rest is history. I'm surprised of the claims made by the malamute owner who said his dog is very disciplined and that the owner couldn't have done more to intervene.


I'm sorry, I still can't quite picture how the two dogs met.
Were they going opposite directions and they were trying to pass? 
Were they going the same direction and one caught up to the other?
Was the JRT on a leash?


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I'm sorry, I still can't quite picture how the two dogs met.
> Were they going opposite directions and they were trying to pass?
> Were they going the same direction and one caught up to the other?
> Was the JRT on a leash?


If you wait long enough I am sure the OP will say they were doing all of them at some point in the thread....


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I'm sorry, I still can't quite picture how the two dogs met.
> Were they going opposite directions and they were trying to pass?
> Were they going the same direction and one caught up to the other?
> Was the JRT on a leash?


In the first post the OP said the Police wouldn't do anything as the Mal was on the lead and the JRT wasn't.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Meezey said:


> In the first post the OP said the Police wouldn't do anything as the Mal was on the lead and the JRT wasn't.


Yes, he did say that.

Was he even there?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sweety said:


> Yes, he did say that.
> 
> Was he even there?


No he wasn't.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Problem with hearing the details from someone who knew someone who was there is that it's a lot like Chinese whispers, what is said gets changed and twisted subtly until the end result is something completely different to the original.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Why do we believe anything that anyone says. Just assume that every poster is making up a story. Much easier that way.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I'm sorry, I still can't quite picture (A) how the two dogs met.
> (B) Were they going opposite directions and they were trying to pass?
> (C) Were they going the same direction and one caught up to the other?
> (D)Was the JRT on a leash?


A = Down the Cat & Fiddle
B = Yes. Mal was leaving the establishment just as last orders were being called and the JRT was rushing in for a quick half.
C = No. But soon after a sudden and untimely meeting in the pub doorway resulting in the two having a bit of a disagreement over manners they were soon heading towards the car park as a means to end their dispute.
D = No. JRT saw an opportunity to slip his leash shortly after his missus had fallen asleep whilst watching The Sky At Night.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Why do we believe anything that anyone says. Just assume that every poster is making up a story. Much easier that way.


Why do you believe random strangers who change their stories, who admit they weren't even there to witness something but heard it from a 3rd party? You could understand someone not believing the media but you believe someone on the internet who didn't witness anything who hasn't spoken to anyone directly related to the incident and who prefixes every snippet of Chinese Whisper with "seemingly".... I wouldn't believe a random strange who told me this story and I wouldn't take anything even a close friend said as "facts" unless I'd witnessed it myself.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

Here's just some of the inconsistencies in this story so far...

The numerous locations this incident took place have been in a park.. a kids play park.. a footpath.. and a bridleway..

Next we have the police who took NO ACTION as JRT was off lead and Mal was on lead. Then the police must have taken action because they interviewed the Mal owner and his dog was well behaved. Then the Mal owner "seems" to have got away with it from the police angle (although they were supposedly taking no action so not sure what angle that was?) however they have passed the information on to the local council who have taken a "keen interest"

Then there was a statement that says "we don't know what happened but we do know the Mal was pulling a bike" 

WELL NEWS JUST IN.. The only piece of information they did know for sure was actually incorrect and the Mal was being pulled by the bike instead.

In my opinion, a poor JRT was very sadly killed by a Malamute. Nobody knows who is to blame as only the JRT owner and Mal owner where there (and perhaps now this OTHER neighbour who just happened to conveniently be there with a blanket to wrap the JRT in)

Regardless of any actual facts, the neighbourhood "who are up in arms" has sided with JRT owner as he is elderly, well liked in the street and his dog was friendly. The Mal owner is an outsider and only rents a property and not part of the neighbourhood clique and hasn't socialised his dog with the 20 other dogs in the 300 m radius.

They've all stood around gossiping to each other, sharing stories about who said what, what the police said, how the council are getting involved, the spaniel owner adding his two pence worth... and now a huge game of Chinese whispers has emerged with lots of third party input, actual facts getting blurred with opinions and now all the scaremongering has caused a "lady in her eighties who socialised dogs for the blind to be afraid to take her small terrier type dog outside of her gate" for fear of being mauled by a rabid Malamute being trailed along by a bike without a muzzle and gobbling up every small dog it sees.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Here's a more serious thought.

Big dog savages and kills small dog. Neighbourhood is disturbed, outraged and up in arms at this incident as well as the new resident for owning such a dangerous dog. Police drop by for a chat and then return to HQ to wash their hands of the affair. Dog's owner doesn't seem to care and sometime later is said to have walked it by an anxious spaniel owner. Anxious, apparently, because of the MAL's and owner's continuing poor on street temperament/behaviour/conduct.
Surely, a number of residents, if not at least one, might have considered this case serious enough to warrant a call to the newspapers.
The papers like sandwich filler stories.
But no. Instead we have this slowly unfolding soap opera..

Had that have been my dog killed by a dog of questionable temperament, character and reputation owned by someone of equally questionable character and reputation. I'd have made damn sure the entire world knew about it.

ETA. Anyways, I stopped believing in sh1t and Santa Clause when I was eight years old.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

cabot said:


> Looks like he or his dog has got away with it from the police angle however they have passed on the information they hold on to the local council who have taken a very keen interest in the situation . Not least because there are something like 20 small dogs in the immediate vicinity of 300 metres.


More likely X knows Y and it's all part of the "old boys network".


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

H


Zaros said:


> Here's a more serious thought.
> 
> Big dog savages and kills small dog. Neighbourhood is disturbed, outraged and up in arms at this incident as well as the new resident for owning such a dangerous dog. Police drop by for a chat and then return to HQ to wash their hands of the affair. Dog's owner doesn't seem to care and sometime later is said to have walked it by an anxious spaniel owner. Anxious, apparently, because of the MAL's and owner's continuing poor on street temperament/behaviour/conduct.
> Surely, a number of residents, if not at least one, might have considered this case serious enough to warrant a call to the newspapers.
> ...


It's strange as OP was so quick at wanting to involve the press when his neighbour "hit" his dog and the gutter snip media who must lurk here were so quick to contact him about it, you know the neighbour with 5 dogs who are neglected and never walked in this lovely friendly neighbourhood.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

cabot said:


> Looks like he or his dog has got away with it from the police angle however they have passed on the information they hold on to the local council who have taken a very keen interest in the situation . Not least because there are something like 20 small dogs in the immediate vicinity of 300 metres. The owner as I say has point blank refused to muzzle the dog and the whole street are up in arms about it. I should point out an elderly lady in her eighties was in tears at what happened. She owns a small terrier type dog and used to socialise dogs for the blind and wont go past her front gates with her dog whom she used to walk regularly.


So you are also party to discussions between the police and the local council? How do you know they are taking a "keen interest in the situation, not least because there are something like 20 small dogs in the immediate vicinity of 300 metres". Do the local council in your area share this information with all and sundry with no regard to confidentiality and data protection? Why only take into consideration small dogs? what about medium sized dogs and why in a 300 metre vicinity - what about those who live 400 or 500 metres away? Was your friend of a friend of a friend there to hear the discussion between the police and local council?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Meezey said:


> H
> 
> It's strange as OP was so quick at wanting to involve the press when his neighbour "hit" his dog and the gutter snip media who must lurk here were so quick to contact him about it, you know the neighbour with 5 dogs who are neglected and never walked in this lovely friendly neighbourhood.


Double standards me thinks. If there's any real foundations to this thread OP should inform the press. If the OP has already successfully managed to sensationalize the story here just imagine what the press would be capable of.

Um.....What's a Malamute?

Ed: Ah! Just print a picture of a Staffy!


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2015)

This thread has gotten ridiculous.

It seems all we know for sure is that a JRT is dead, owner understandably distraught, and a Malamute was involved in the JRT's death. 
The details of the actual incident, what led up to it, what happened in the moment... all of that seems to be one giant clusterfluck of hearsay, chinese whispers and speculation.

Just going back over the first page, it seems the original question was what rights does the JRT owner have despite the police having taken no action. I guess if the JRT owner wants to, he could take the malamute owner to civil court, but I'm not sure about UK laws on this.

@cabot perhaps you could explain what would YOU like to see happen?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Why do we believe anything that anyone says. Just assume that every poster is making up a story. Much easier that way.


To be fair it's why I rarely comment on dog attack posts, not that I don't necessarily believe them, but I take what is said with a pinch of salt. After all we only get one ( often biased ) side of the story and there is always two sides to a story


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Dogloverlou said:


> To be fair it's why I rarely comment on dog attack posts, not that I don't necessarily believe them, but I take what is said with a pinch of salt. After all we only get one ( often biased ) side of the story and there is always two sides to a story


3 sides your side, their side and the truth


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

But if you ask 4 people what the weather forecast is you will get at least 5 conflicting versions. I use the met office one and they update and totally change it every hour so actually no one is necessarily telling untruths!

I really do not see the point in putting any facts on here, both the OP and the facts get pulled about to suit each individual agenda. And too many seem to think the attacker cannot possibly be at fault which worries me that a lot of people on here must have very aggressive dogs and they would want to talk themselves out of any damage their dog did. What other reason would there be for some people to ALWAYS blame the child, adult , small dog or whatever has just been ripped up by a dog.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Blitz said:


> But if you ask 4 people what the weather forecast is you will get at least 5 conflicting versions. I use the met office one and they update and totally change it every hour so actually no one is necessarily telling untruths!
> 
> I really do not see the point in putting any facts on here, both the OP and the facts get pulled about to suit each individual agenda. And too many seem to think the attacker cannot possibly be at fault *which worries me that a lot of people on here must have very aggressive dogs and they would want to talk themselves out of any damage their dog did. * What other reason would there be for some people to ALWAYS blame the child, adult , small dog or whatever has just been ripped up by a dog.


So you're implying that those on here not buying into what's been said here, have aggressive dogs and that's why they're defending the attacking dog?  That possibly has to be the most ludicrous suggestion I've ever read.....

No one from what I've read has said much other than no facts are known and questioned how someone who wasn't there to witness the attack can possibly know so many details.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> But if you ask 4 people what the weather forecast is you will get at least 5 conflicting versions. I use the met office one and they update and totally change it every hour so actually no one is necessarily telling untruths!
> 
> I really do not see the point in putting any facts on here, both the OP and the facts get pulled about to suit each individual agenda. And too many seem to think the attacker cannot possibly be at fault which worries me that a lot of people on here must have very aggressive dogs and they would want to talk themselves out of any damage their dog did. What other reason would there be for some people to ALWAYS blame the child, adult , small dog or whatever has just been ripped up by a dog.


 There are no facts! The OP wasn't there!

So out of that your now accusing members of having very aggressive dogs because they are unwilling to believe a 4th hand story! Think that says A LOT more about you than any member posting on here!

No one had said the fault is with anyone one because guess what no one was there!

Why do you always feel the need to insult and make rude assumptions about members when they don't agree with you Blitz? You used to amuse me as you would come out of the wood work pointing your finger and squawking at members telling them how rude they are and how they talk rubbish, yet you are probably one of the rudest members on here!

Again there are no facts, rather like your post and accusations about other members are not based in facts! You seem very joyful to condemn people with no facts at all!!! What does that say about you?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> But if you ask 4 people what the weather forecast is you will get at least 5 conflicting versions. I use the met office one and they update and totally change it every hour so actually no one is necessarily telling untruths!
> 
> I really do not see the point in putting any facts on here, both the OP and the facts get pulled about to suit each individual agenda. And too many seem to think the attacker cannot possibly be at fault which worries me that a lot of people on here must have very aggressive dogs and they would want to talk themselves out of any damage their dog did. What other reason would there be for some people to ALWAYS blame the child, adult , small dog or whatever has just been ripped up by a dog.


 so I've defended/stuck up for both dogs and both owners because we simply do not know the truth, we know what the OP has told us via someone else who offered a blanket, I very much doubt that person saw it happen either but if they did and they were to come on here and explain what they saw then I think they would get a different response to the OP who was not there and did not see. I haven't read anyone defend the attacking dog but many have questioned the version of events, the possible reasons for the attack, the possibility of the JRT not being under control/chasing the Mal, and most agreed the Mal should be muzzled now it has killed a dog although disputed the suggestions one member made that big/powerful dogs should be muzzled just in case. Some of us also questioned how the OP and one other poster (who you also gave a flea in their ear) knew exactly what was said by the police and between the police/local council.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 24, 2011)

I'm a naturally doubtful person when information has been passed second/third/fourth hand and is shrouded with opinions such as "seemingly" and "it appears as though"

Just to clarify.. Does that mean I went out and specifically chose a pup that showed signs of aggression? Or is it my doubtful attitude that make her aggressive? She also hasn't used this forum yet as she's only 5 months old and can't quite read yet.. will she still be able to tell I've questioned lack of facts through my disbelieving body language? :Nailbiting


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Meezey said:


> There are no facts! The OP wasn't there!
> 
> So out of that your now accusing members of having very aggressive dogs because they are unwilling to believe a 4th hand story! Think that says A LOT more about you than any member posting on here!
> 
> ...


You are hilarious. You are so rude a lot of the decent posters on here have had to block you.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

I think all us big scary dangerous dog owners should invest in this muzzle

http://metro.co.uk/2015/08/30/theres-something-wrong-with-this-dogs-face-5367588/


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Nettles said:


> d.
> 
> *In my opinion, a poor JRT was very sadly killed by a Malamute. Nobody knows who is to blame as only the JRT owner and Mal owner where there *(and perhaps now this OTHER neighbour who just happened to conveniently be there with a blanket to wrap the JRT in)


This is all we know - everything else is speculation and whether or not the mal's owner was culpable depends on his dog's temperament, and whether he knew it was possibly aggressive to smaller dogs; sadly the JRT's owner must bear at least some of the blame for allowing his unleashed (although possibly friendly) little dog to approach another dog of unknown temperament.

Whatever we say, whichever side we take, we won't change this awful outcome and for both owners, but especially the man whose pet was killed, the whole thing must be dreadful beyond belief. I have to admit that if my friend's dog died in similar circumstances, emotionally I would take my friend's side, even if I knew that they had been partly responsible. Liking someone does that to you - you want to support them, and certainly you don't want to lay blame on a person who is probably feeling as guilty as hell anyway, the way we all do when something awful happens.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> You are hilarious. You are so rude a lot of the decent posters on here have had to block you.


That sounds a bit elitist to me - who are the decent posters on here?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> That sounds a bit elitist to me - who are the decent posters on here?


Well I haven't blocked you rottie.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Well I haven't blocked you rottie.


Thank you Zaros - as neither of us have blocked @Meezey that must mean we are not decent posters :Joyful


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> You are hilarious. You are so rude a lot of the decent posters on here have had to block you.


And there you go again Blitz, sad thing is you run around accusing people yet you are always the one who turns to insults! I really don't give a fiddlers my dear who has me blocked, next you'll be shouting about who's Dad is bigger than who's! But you proved my point nicely  If decent posters mean the likes of you then block away my dear I'd rather not have anything to do with those who think training animals still involves hitting and choking them. Irony is I've had you blocked until I responded yesterday lol pucker up sweet cheeks :Kiss


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> That sounds a bit elitist to me - who are the decent posters on here?


The ones who have me blocked and I can bet money on who


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Meezey said:


> The ones who have me blocked and I can bet money on who


Obviously the delightful little ray of sunshine Blitz has the sense not to see herself as a decent poster


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> That sounds a bit elitist to me - who are the decent posters on here?


not me obviously
but hey then im a picky old dog :Kiss


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you Zaros - as neither of us have blocked @Meezey that must mean we are not decent posters :Joyful


So logically thinking then that must mean we are indecent posters. Time for some rude pictures and comments. 

BRB.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

lostbear said:


> This is all we know - everything else is speculation and whether or not the mal's owner was culpable depends on his dog's temperament, and whether he knew it was possibly aggressive to smaller dogs;
> 
> So all we know is that a malamute killed a jrt?
> 
> ...


You can't say all we know is a mal killed a jrt and everything else is speculation and then start commenting about the JRT a) being unleashed, b) running up to the mal and c) that the JRT must bear some of the blame - that is pure speculation!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

rocco33 said:


> You can't say all we know is a mal killed a jrt and everything else is speculation and then start commenting about the JRT a) being unleashed, b) running up to the mal and c) that the JRT must bear some of the blame - that is pure speculation!


Mea culpa!


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

lostbear said:


> Mea culpa!


LOL 
I haven't really followed this thread closely, nor have I been on the forum much recently, but there does seem to be a fair degree of negativity towards the OP (which may or may not be justified) that seems to be influencing the replies. 
Regardless of the circumstances, a dog that has killed another needs to be muzzled IMO.


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2015)

Good grief people, if we can’t be civil to each other on a thread about this incident, no wonder it’s such a clusterfluck in the neighborhood it actually happened in.

Bottom line, we are all dog lovers and we all have to figure out how to live with each other on some level.
If I had a large dog who had killed a small dog - regardless of the circumstances, I would be doing everything I could to alleviate the worry of the other neighborhood residents. It seems like the mature, sensible thing to do.

As a large dog owner, I really try to be mindful of how others perceive my dogs and try to alleviate their worry. Is it a double standard? Sure, I guess so, but at the end of the day if it makes my life as a dog owner easier, it’s no skin off my back to reassure my neighbors that my dog is well managed and under control.

If I were a small dog owner, I would take extra precautions with my dog knowing that their size puts them at a disadvantage in many situations. It’s my responsibility as a dog owner to keep my dog safe, and if that means double standards again, so be it. I’d rather have double standards than a dead dog.

And to all those neighborhood folks involved in this situation I would issue a word of warning. Be very very careful how you go about complaining/reporting this situation. Not everyone is a dog lover, and you may end up finding ALL dogs affected by the outcome of whatever decision is made. IOW complain enough about the malamute, and make it a big enough deal and you may find yourself in a situation where the landlord decides he/she is done dealing with dog owners completely or makes a rule about dog sizes etc. OP has a leonberger I believe, if it comes to size regulations, OP may find themselves having to move or find a new home for their dog....


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Wow, that escalated quickly! 

Like it or not, dogs are dogs, accidents will happen...... we should always be doing our best to prevent it but we are all imperfect ultimately. 

*sigh*


----------



## WillowT (Mar 21, 2015)

IncaThePup said:


> Surely the Mal owner could have done something to prevent their dog getting hold of the JRT in the first place? Owners with powerful breeds should have to make sure their dogs are under control at all times as surely it would have had to have been going on for a while for the dog to kill another? ..including the mal having it in its mouth at some point?


The dog was under control! It was on a lead. As for stopping the dog grabbing the JRT I think it is easier said than done! The owner might have been behind the dog and just didn't see this coming. It probably happened very quickly. But maybe more preventative actions may have saved the JRT like a muzzle? Not sure if this was the first ever sign of aggression the dog had ever shown


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Zaros said:


> So logically thinking then that must mean we are indecent posters. Time for some rude pictures and comments.
> 
> BRB.


I am a vicar, therefore I must be decent , and I LURVE @Meezey


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Sosha said:


> My mistake - I thought only the pope was infallible.


The pope (any pope) is not and has never been claimed to be infallible. A pope may make 'infallible' pronouncements - which are specifically stated to be infallible - usually when some aspect of doctrine has been called into question. Last used by pope Pius XII in 1950. Commonly misunderstood.



Blitz said:


> In the case of the JR and malamute I fail to see how the malamute could be under control when the owner was on a bike - *what the hell were they doing cycling near loose dogs in the first place*.


I often cycle near loose dogs and other people cycle near my off-lead dogs on the several shared-use paths in the area. I also cycle with my dogs (no more than 2 at a time) on these paths; we encounter other dogs and it's not a problem. I call my dogs over and get them to sit and wait on the path edge, other owners do likewise.



lostbear said:


> That does suggest a lack of control - TBH I would think it was dangerous for the owner - I wouldn't like to be riding a bike with the risk that my dog could pull it over or even unbalance it. I'm surprised that anyone would exercise a dog like this.


I've got one of these bike attachments. It has a spring which cushions the dog's movements so you can keep in control of the bike. I can feel Fly (14kg) pulling against it though, so I wouldn't fancy my chances with a Malamute!


----------

