Originally Posted by Diablo

On the basis that you weren't mauled to death by her furry friend, or even threatened, one may deduce that there was no danger. Most certainly, threating to rip the owner's throat out would not have allayed the dog's desire to savage you and your family had it so intended.

Originally Posted by Diablo

Firstly, check the law.

Originally Posted by Diablo

Secondly, given that you clearly have no idea or understanding of dog behaviour, you are in no position to establish whether or not the approach was aggressive.

Originally Posted by Diablo

Indeed, for many elderly people who's partners have passed on and who's families have "better" things to do, the companionship of a dog is invaluable to them. Likewise the theraputic roles dogs can play. Its a proven fact that many children, with physical or mental disabilities respond extremely well when interacting with dogs.

Originally Posted by Diablo

Tell me, why did you have a child - to fill a void? Because it was expected of you? Because the contraception failed? because you and your partner ran out of things to talk about? Or (hopefully for the child's sake) was it for all the right reasons. Think about it carefully before you answer, and be honest with yourself - your answer is to be fair, irrelevant to all but you.

Originally Posted by Diablo

If I may so enquire, what is your racial and or cultural background? Many races and cultures have far less respect for animals (just as many have a good deal more). If you fall into the former grouping, it is perhaps understandable that you hold the views you do.

Originally Posted by davegtt

By your way of thinking all dogs should be put down regardless of the breed. You come across as very small minded

Originally Posted by Suresh

Why do people feel they need a dim, imaginery companion? Is there something else lacking in their lives? You have a good point that children need to understand that large dogs need to be avoided as they can be dangerous and unpredictable and that owners of said beasts are typically incredible bores.

Originally Posted by Suresh

Thanks for the mostly-friendly reply. I'll do my best to [mostly] reciprocate.



The furry cretin was happy to bark and snarl at a small child, but didn't feel so brave when confronted by a rather larger and angry adult. Trust me the chavette concerned was justifyably shocked that someone took extreme offence at her anti-social behaviour of letting an out-of-control animal of the leash where not permitted.




So you are now an expert on Dutch law
Dogs need to be kept on a leash in local woodland according to council by-laws. The reason is that a number of [innocent] walkers, runners and cyclists have been chased and bitten in recent years. Sorry no English language link for you.



Barking, snarling and running towards small child = aggressive. Or did I mis-interpret the signals?




All good examples of how an dog can be an ideal companion for someone with something lacking in their lives. Completely agree.




Please stay on topic!




I have no problem with dogs or other animals actually. My problem is with arrogant owners who think they have a God-given right to freely walk around with a large or potentially agressive animal and expect everyone else to just accept it.

Originally Posted by Diablo

Ah...

I forgot. You are in Holland.

Fair enough on the law. In the UK we have a more accepting attitide towards dogs.

Satisfy my curiosity Suresh....Are you Dutch yourself? And how big was the "beast" that terrorised you?

Originally Posted by Diablo

And here we go again,

There are no myths Suresh.

There will always be bad dogs, just as there will also be bad people.

You have, yourself, admitted to what many would consider unacceptibly agressive threatening behavour to a lone woman in the park who's dog was in your opinion out of control although clearly of no danger. Should you be put down for that?

Dogs with a history of biting tend to be put down (for very good reasons) and hence there will always be a first time.

The study does not show that the breeds you listed are the most dangerous, but rather where there are fatalities those breeds are more commonly involved.

Obvious reasons really - size and strength.

I will accept that one fatality is too many, but if you are going to quote from statistics you should really get it right. Cars kill more people than dogs do - should cars be banned?

What the statistics don't show is that those are the breeds favoured by the less than desirable elements of society. The action should, therefore, be taken against the individuals themselves, rather than the breeds stereotyped.

Perhaps if you, and others like you, put your efforts into campaigning against irresponsible ownership rather than simply stereotyping the dog and calling for the banning of their breeds.

Any animal has the ability to cause a human harm, just as any human has the ability to cause another human harm. As humans we should be responsible for our own actions, and those of our animals and our dependants.

Children will always be more susceptible to injury - its not rocket science - its about comparative size.

I would hope my dogs would never willfully cause injury to anyone. But I am not so stupid as to ever forget that they are large strong animals with sharp teeth. Which is why the are never out of my sight or control when out and about - if nothing else, I am appreciative that not everyone is a dog lover, as is their absolute right.

Strangely, even that doesn't even work, and I had some middle aged ******** spout verbal abuse at my wife and I when we were out the other day with them both walking perfectly to heel on the lead, apparently for daring to walk on a public path within ten feet of him.

Wasn't you Suresh, by chance?

And here's something for those posting on the thread to think about, particularly as a parent.

Dogs exist. People have them. You will meet dogs in the park. I would suggest therefore that you have a responsibility to your children to at least have a basic understanding of dog behavour, and teach your children a basic understanding of dog behavioir, much as you would teach them not to play with cars.

Most dog training clubs will welcome visits for this very purpose.

So why not do something about it, learn a bit about animal behavior, understand the issues, good and bad (for your child's benefit if nothing else) put your efforts into dealing with the cause (people, society) rather than bleating on here from behind a keyboard about banning dogs.

Anyway, here's something to start with:-

Despite what this may look like, this is natural, instinctive play. It's what dogs do:-



Interestingly, you may also be interested to know (assuming you've decided to open your mind a little bit) that the police force in this country don't use Rottweilers for general police duties, because they are unable to train them to be agressive enough...

They are finding the same problem with German Shepherds.

And to put some balance on Cooikie's posts showing what are probably dogs tragically trained to fight by some of societies low life scum, for pleasure and more likely financial gain, and generaly not someone's family pet, here's a real "dangerous dog" in the more commonly observed position

Originally Posted by oik

I read alot of this 'giving the dog a reason to bite through body language' claptrap ... it's bollocks, are you supposed to refer to your 'how to behave around fighting dogs' manual when confronted?

The dangerous dogs act was created with bull terriers at the forefront of it's focus ... in public, on a lead, muzzled, end of.

Originally Posted by davegtt

And how many actual fighting dogs (that are breed for that reason alone) do you see walking the streets?

Originally Posted by oik

I read alot of this 'giving the dog a reason to bite through body language' claptrap ... it's bollocks, are you supposed to refer to your 'how to behave around fighting dogs' manual when confronted?

The dangerous dogs act was created with bull terriers at the forefront of it's focus ... in public, on a lead, muzzled, end of.

Originally Posted by oik

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991...en_2.htm#mdiv1

Many ... infact I am dealing with some right now, they are learning all about electricity, a marvellous theory indeed!

Originally Posted by davegtt

Why have you replied to my post with that link, what are you trying to tell me exactly?

Originally Posted by AudiLover

Why is it then that dogs tend to bark at people that dont like dogs more often then ones that do? Stare at a dogs eyes and its more likely to bite you and raising your voice is a no no aswell.

Originally Posted by davegtt

Nothing, I asked a question and that link bears no resembelance to an answer....

Originally Posted by AudiLover

Oik how often is a child confronted by a snarling dog anyway. Most owners who know theyre dogs arent too friendly wouldnt let them off theyre lead in the first place. A owner only lets theyre dogs lose when theyre pretty sure it wont cause anyone harm.

Originally Posted by AudiLover

terriers are little ****s, but rotties and doberman just mind theyre own business. The smaller the dog the more they like to bark.

Originally Posted by AudiLover

terriers are little ****s, but rotties and doberman just mind theyre own business. The smaller the dog the more they like to bark.

Originally Posted by oik

I read alot of this 'giving the dog a reason to bite through body language' claptrap ... it's bollocks, are you supposed to refer to your 'how to behave around fighting dogs' manual when confronted?

The dangerous dogs act was created with bull terriers at the forefront of it's focus ... in public, on a lead, muzzled, end of.

Originally Posted by oik

I would suggest that is because you are a bit dim, sorry and all that!

Originally Posted by davegtt

Maybe your the one whos a bit dim, if you like to read the legistation you'll obviouslly be able to tell that the laws apply to humans and it also says that if a dog was out of control the owner will be charged. Im sorry but if theyre charging the owner its clearly saying theyre the responisble one for thier dogs actions....

So do you want to explain your point again? Or has the light switch been turned off in there?

Originally Posted by davegtt

No, But any Pitbull thats on the lead shouldnt be mauling a little child should it, when was the last time you heard of a dog attacking someone whilst still on the lead? and if the dog is off the lead it should be realistically in an area that is not a well populated place, maybe in a field like where I walk mine rather than in a park where kids are loose. Its fairly obvious dont you think? Just because a certain breed of dog is capable of causing more damage doesnt mean its more likely to attack than say a collie.

Originally Posted by davegtt

I agree, but youve also agreed that 99% of the time the only way a dog of this calibre should be able to attack a child is by owner negligence.... have you not?