h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Excerpts from a reputable website on the subject: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/PoliceStation/tabid/334/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/54/Dog-Attack.aspx

"If the dog is small and presents no danger for your neck area, you may want to try to kick it. A good blow to the nose or to the body will stop most small dogs.
If a large dog attacks ... you may want to use your foot as a primary weapon.... Punch the dog on the nose as hard as you can. Twist or pull the dog's ears. The dog's eyes are another soft spot which you should attack if required to defend yourself. Another strategy is to kick the dog in the rib cage."

But this thread got us in trouble for such talk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=5118719

And some food for thought from BBC News:

A few of the "unlucky ones"

Diane Whipple http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2050595.stm
Ellie Lawrenson http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6222319.stm
Archie-Lee Hirst http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7163696.stm
Cadey-Lee Dixon http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/5375520.stm

A few of the "lucky ones"

Kerry Neary http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/5386204.stm
Charlotte Hall http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/5/newsid_2527000/2527393.stm
Mandy Peynado http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7146753.stm

Mods! MODS! They're discussing a perfectly legal matter that offends me for some unspecified reason! Please block this thread!!

I can´t believe that other thread got locked. It was not about going into your neighbours garden and attacking his dog. It was about self defence.

that advice is ridiculous.

man versus big dog? no contest.

if you cannot make good your escape...up a tree..behind a gate etc...

your next option is to stand perfectly erect and still. an order in a loud commanding voice is worth a try. if you are slightly built and are knocked or dragged to the floor, curl yourself into a ball protecting your vital organs, face and neck. if there is a wall or gutter use this to give you added protection.

if the attack persists and you see no likelihood of rescue or feel that you are likely to succumb, do not think your hands and feet are appropriate weapons. that is beyond absurd. if you have the presence of mind, your belt is a good weapon. buckle side out. coat, shirts, keys...think tools. it is what made humans the apex predator.

putting unprotected hands or feet anywhere near the mouth of a large dog in attack mode is crazy. some of these animals can literally crack your bones the bite pressure is so extreme.

worth adding that some dogs will not break off an attack if they are hurt or injured. in a recent local case a large dog had to be subdued by several strong men after killing another dog on the beach and did not show any signs of yielding until it was actually crushed to death.

Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

I don't understand how it can be illegal to defend yourself from a dog that you think might kill you, as has happend many times, but legal to harm/kill a human being that you think might kill you?

Honestly I have never read such rubbish in my life.

If you want to give productive advice on defence from a dog attack then please do, but to give this ludicrous advice and to even assume that some of the suggested techniques would be affective against a full blown attack from any large breed is naive at best and plain stupid at worst.

The other thread was closed, and rightly so, because

a) it was a breed specific thread that could have been seen to be actively encouraging violence against an animal. No *counter balancing* advice was given, no preventative advice was given. It was an attack on a breed's character pure and simple.

b) if you had genuinley been concerned in giving advice regarding dog attacks and defence then you would not have targeted any breed, all dogs have the potential to attack

I for one will continue to report any posts that any of you make that are as ridiculous, prejudiced and dangerous as the ones made and reported. This does not make me an idiot or a moron or any other name you wish to call me, it makes me a darn site more sensible than any of you bloodbaying self righteous know it alls making the posts in the first place.

If you don't have actual constructive advice to give, or knowledge (other than what you have read on a canadian website) then the best course of action would be to refrain from bothering in the first place.

Have you read Aesop's "Dog in the Manger" fable? I think you've just updated it for us.

"I don't want to take part in this debate, so I'm going to stop you from doing it"

If you can't see the difference between self-defence and violence, then the kindest thing I can say is that perhaps you should reflect on it, and maybe read some of those BBC News stories I posted links to earlier.

"Iamdisgusted", hi there.


"a) it was a breed specific thread that could have been seen to be actively encouraging violence against an animal. No *counter balancing* advice was given, no preventative advice was given. It was an attack on a breed's character pure and simple."

It was a "breed specific" thread because the thugs in question had a dog of that particular breed, which lets face it, has been bred to be big and aggressive - it was created to be a guard dog. It wasn't an attack on character, it was a valid concern about violent people having a potentially violent animal that can cause serious damage.

"b) if you had genuinley been concerned in giving advice regarding dog attacks and defence then you would not have targeted any breed, all dogs have the potential to attack."

Yes. But the thugs in the OP had a rottie. Not a terrier, not a beagle, not an alsatian. That's like saying "you shouldn't ask how to defend yourself from being hit with a pool cue, as all heavy lumps of wood can be used to smack you around the head."

"I for one will continue to report any posts that any of you make that are as ridiculous, prejudiced and dangerous as the ones made and reported. This does not make me an idiot or a moron or any other name you wish to call me, it makes me a darn site more sensible than any of you bloodbaying self righteous know it alls making the posts in the first place."

Do the house rules say "report any posts you think are ridiculous"? If they do, give me chapter and verse so I can get those "rename Thursday" nutcases shut down. And there's nothing prejudiced about asking for SPECIFIC advice on defending yourself from a SPECIFIC animal in a SPECIFIC situation. And cheers for taking the moral high ground. Makes me want to interact with you in a civil manner.

"If you don't have actual constructive advice to give, or knowledge (other than what you have read on a canadian website) then the best course of action would be to refrain from bothering in the first place."

Aside from you appointing yourself as our moral guardian and deciding what is constructive and what isn't, I'd like to know what the origin of that website has to do with your problem? Is all Canadian literature offensive, or just that one?

While this thread discusses how to defend yourself from a dog attack it will remain open. But if it descends into a series of posts on just 'How to kill a dog...' or any other animal we will have to close it immediately, as per the previous thread, because this is an illegal activity.

It just goes to show how much notice I took of the *other* thread's title.. I just read the posts and responded to general dog attacks.

And, to be honest, I tried to put myself in a realistic position. I'm unexpectedly attacked by a dog, what do I do? try to keep it from fastening on my face or neck. It's called reflex and instinct and to suggest I'm being cruel, ill-advised or anything other than realistic and honest is, well, ill-advised and unrealistic, not to mention dishonest!

"killing animals... because it is an illegal activity."

It isn't, and you know it isn't. It might be an offence against property to kill someone's dog, but you can kill most animals you want. I have some great tips on killing wasps, and on hunting wild rabbit. In fact, some of the tips on what to do with wild rabbit once I'd caught and killed it I got from this very site.

I'm not opposed to any sensible debate, but how can anyone assume that the premise and intention of this (and the last) thread is to promote violence in the face of a potential attack..

i don't see the *excerpts* including any of the following (all from the same site)

Avoid eye contact with an aggressive dog.
If you are jogging, stop jogging and walk by the dog, avoiding eye contact and sudden movement.
Avoid the temptation to rebuke the owner of an aggressive dog for allowing their menacing and unleashed dog to remain in your direct path. Aggressive dogs are often a reflection of their owner's character. If you notice the aggressive dog unleashed again, contact the police with a good description of the dog, the owner and time of day. Try to remember the dog's name if it was called during your presence.
If the dog runs towards you exhibiting aggressive behaviour (growling or barking), stand your ground without sudden movement. Brace yourself and command the dog as if you were its owner: "No!" "Down!" "Sit!" "Stay!" Do this repeatedly. Do not raise your hands in a fight stance prematurely as this may antagonize the dog and you might lose your one chance at stopping the attacking dog through commands.


No preventative measures are cited.. nowhere does the author of the initial post advise that to raise your hands prematurely etc may actually antagonize the dog..

I am familiar with all the stories you have posted, and they are all tragic and most of them could probably have been prevented had the dogs involved been subjected to the correct training etc by their owners. I do not condone dog attacks, but would a debate on responsible dog ownership not be more productive? Would advice on how to ensure responsible ownership of any dog not be more productive?

Dog attacks are centurys old, not breed specific and the trigger is not something you can assume or predict. You are and always will be in the hands of the dogs owner for that. A dogs owner should know it's triggers, recognise a potential build up to an attack and have the necessary control over their dog to prevent it. If you are unfortunate enough to encounter a dog that is showing signs of aggression and the owner seems nervous, equally aggressive or in any way not in control then prevention is always better than retaliation.
Not even the strongest of men would be able to *fight* off a full blown attack from a large dog, to suggest so is irresponsible and ludicrous and NOT good advice.

If you only wish your posts to be replied to by people willing to join in with misinformed nonsense then maybe you are in the wrong place.
Last time i checked I had equal rights to express my opinion and i don't make the decision to remove posts, or close threads, mods and editing staff do. I'm sure if my posts offended you then you would report them, and rightly so.

i think 'domestic' animals, tho missing, was clearly implied. and it isn't just a property offence. there are all sorts of laws regarding under which circumstances you may kill an animal.

the header post contained a reference to small dogs. since these beasties constitute no serious threat to an adult i fail to see the rational behind explaining how to injure them. if you can kick a corgi for example, you certainly have the means to dodge one.

if you are frightened of corgis you probably need therapy. or thicker socks.

So why couldn't you post that advice without the high-handed lecture, condescension and smug superiority rather than the "I'm deigning to tell you all that you disgust me, and I shall stifle your pitiful conversation because I disagree"??

And yes, you're entitled to your opinion. That opinion seems to involve a giant marble pedestal with you at the top and me at the bottom, so I'd like to exercise my entitlement to use the unsubscribe button.

did i knock you off your pedastal when i climbed on mine?

oh i do apologise, still.. thats life.

if you are talking about the poster rather than what was posted, it's a dead giveaway that you've lost the point.

While people are regularly being savaged by dogs, there is a need to understand what we as society and as individuals can do in response to it.

Unfortunately, the moment people start yikesing posts when they don't agree with a particular point, we lose the ability to judge what is and isn't an acceptable response to a dog attack. This decision was being made by people who were not even taking part in the debate, and frankly it undermines trust in the whole process of having a grown-up conversation about it. People may have strong opinions, but we need to see them in order to judge them for ourselves. I expect the moderators of this site to preserve a culture of free speech at this level.

And I'm still yet to see a posting on this subject which I believe was any form of incitement to an illegal activity.

Maybe there is room for a conversation on responsible dog ownership. Why don't you go and start one!