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

the problem is you cannot determine that specific breeds are safe or not safe. while some breeds are bred to be aggressive, pit bulls for example, and rightly should be outlawed, aggressive behaviour can manifest in any type of breed. genes, treatment, lack of socialisation, context and chance, can result in a potentially killer dog.

i reject the argument that only poorly treated dogs are aggressive. i am sick of owners of dogs expressing astonishment when they put their rotty in the back yard with a child alone and it ripped her face off. how many times have we heard 'the dog has never been aggressive before'?

realistically one must treat EVERY dog (except small dogs) as potentially dangerous and take appropriate precautions.

Are you always this paranoid. oh and Im not a chap either - does that in anyway help you come to the truth? Can I ask do you 'know where I live as well'?

I think this has become a rather interesting debate and Im not sure what point it is you are trying to get across!

Im not really sure what truth you are trying get to?

"while some breeds are bred to be aggressive, pit bulls for example, and rightly should be outlawe"

This is why breed specific legislation and media hype is dangerous.

Pit bulls were actually bred to be aggressive towards other dogs and animals - not towards people. They were bred to be good with people, because otherwise how could a dog be handled into the pit to fight? How could it be removed afterwards? Dogs in fights have to be washed by the other dog's owner, that couldn't be done with a dog people aggressive!

I'm not trying to defend any specific type of dog, or argue that all pit bulls are lovely soft fluffy things, just trying to get over the point that we shouldn't be 'abusing' any particular breed, but trying to educate breeders and dog owners.

excellent post! are you me as well???

i disagree. aggression in a dog is aggression. it doesn't pick and choose on the basis of species. a dog reared from a puppy will, unless the owner is exceptionally careless, see himself as a pack member subordinate to the pack leader, ie the owner. an aggressive by nature dog can show aggression to any person outside of the pack, sometimes to 'pack members' they see as inferior, such as other pets or children, but the underlying aggression might never be shown.

this is why people to whom the dog shows appropriate deference in the home are sometimes astonished when the animal goes beserk on a strange child or another dog. they assume because the dog has shown them appropriate pack deference then it is not dangerous to others.

it is a failure to properly understand the pack nature of dogs.

i have also seen ribbon winning obedience dogs suddenly lose it in public with other dogs. once that instinct thing kicks in, all the training goes out the window.

never ever assume a large dog is always safe.

Wow, turn my back for a second and 70+ posts

Re the OP. Yes it was selective, note the use of the word "excerpts". I also provided the link so others were free to read the full article.

As a postie, I have had to deal with dog attacks. About a dozen or so. Kicking got me out of three attacks, but the worst attacks were at close quarters with no opportunity to move. Being assertive never worked. You can't dodge an attack carrying a 50lb bag of mail. Standing still worked twice. All in all I ended up with 10 stitches from two of the attacks, bruises and torn clothes from the others.

My colleagues fared far worse. One chap had his achilles tendon sliced by a pitbull when he adopted the stand still approach. Another tripped & fell trying to run from two dobermans. He ended up with 40+ stitches in his side and back after trying to curl into a ball.

In short, all the well-meaning advice about standing still and being assertive doesn't always work. IMHO, being even more aggressive than the dog works.

I am really pleased to see our two eloquent and passionate new posters. I am sure I'm not the only one that would like to extend a warm welcome to you and look forward to some stimulating debates & discussions

Yes, well said, SWL.

I was too caught up in the discussion earlier to give them the usual h2g2 welcome

Thank you for your welcome it didnt seem a very nice place for a while there!

As I said I was a milkperson so I do understand where you are coming from and yes Ive had my share of bites, the worst being from a corgi! But again I still do not wish any breed to be banned!

There are a number of repellents that can be carried which certainly will get a dogs attention and make them stop and I think in your profession there is a perfect legitmate reason to carry them.

I realise that saying its down to the owners does not make it any less painful when you are bitten but why should all dogs of one breed be made to suffer or die because of human behaviour?

I think it's relevant what someone said earlier about dogs being pack animals, and they may behave in a different way to 'outsiders' as perceived by them, than within the household they live in.

As a child I was bitten by a small terrier, not sure which breed. We were camping in Scotland and the dog was by someone's frame tent. I went to pet it and it bit my hand. I had to go to hospital in Inverness for a tetanus injection. I certainly learnt my lesson not to pet strange dogs unless the owner is clear that it is safe.

I thought it might amuse you SWL that this incident happened in Inverness. But I remember how completely lovely they were in the hospital there. Nice people in Inverness, but their dogs are a bitch

I don't think anyone was advocating killing all dogs of one breed, unless I missed something.

I quite like dogs, but my understanding of them changed when a farmer helped me train my border collie as a sheepdog. There's an innate violence that has to be controlled: channelled where necessary and stifled at times. Every dog can be violent given the right circumstances.

In some ways dogs are like guns. Perfectly safe when handled properly by responsible people but in the hands of ne'er do wells or the criminal ....

We've banned guns for this very reason. I don't advocate banning dogs, but I do think we should control ownership. Bring back the dog licence and have it resemble driving licences in that a prospective owner has to demonstrate knowledge & understanding of dogs. I would also like to see dogs covered by third party insurance to cover the damage & injuries they sometimes cause.

Owning a dog isn't a right, it's a responsibility. When it's a big dog like a Rottweiler, I expect the owners to show a greater deal of responsibility.

Hello all,

I've been following this all day with much interest (and a few other words too, but I won't mention that now! )

SWL, Those that insure their dogs are covered for third party liability, but obviously that goes back to responsible ownership and whether you insure your dog (although some dogs you can't insure)

As well as encouraging responsible dog ownership, I also beleive that children should be taught at school how to behave around dogs.

Like Effers, I was bitten as a child by a JRT. With the knowledge of dogs I have now I realise that it was all my fault, and since that day I never approached strange dogs, but at that time in my life I had no idea how to behave around strange dogs.

I think it's important people teach their kids not to pet any dog without permission and supervision. Children can be a bit rough and make even the most placid dog snap if they pull the tail hard enough. And obviously some dogs are rescue dogs with dubious pasts. A hand moving towards the head could mean another slapping for the dog, even when all that's intended is a loving stroke.

Dogs do need some free running off the lead, especially younger ones with lots of energy to burn. When I can't get up to Cannock Chase I walk my dog on a local park. I walk him on the lead until I get there then let him loose. He never approaches strange people or dogs, quite the opposite - he's quite timid. He's never shown any agression to people who have come to my house - he barks at first and hides behind me, but he makes friends in the end. But I'd NEVER allow him to be alone with my 11-month old niece. You should never put your dog in a situation where he could hurt someone.

As for postmen, well! My dog sounds quite vicious when the postman delivers - and it's a successful strategy. Every day the postman comes, the dog barks and snarls, and the postman goes away again. But if we meet the postman coming home from a walk, the dog hides behind me and cowers.

I'm not sure I've actually made any particularly coherent point there, but it's just my

Deb

Welcome to the jungle greyhounds and IAD, opposing views are more than welcome here by those who have the intellectuial capacity to think about their own and other peoples opinions.

Speaking of which....

Strangely unless you actually sign your cheques strangleystrange why are you whinging on again about other people's made up names


Contrary to what some people have said some of the yilsed postrs werent actually advocating cruelty to dogs for thew sake of it. Mine and opthers were telling anyone interested how to avoid major injuries and possibly death if attacked by a dog. In mine I even asked hte orignal poster why he would want to kill the dog when beating it off was a more effective line to take.


If you check some of the photos Ive linked to on other threads you will see Im a dog owner.

I used to take my dogs into school to meet the children when I was a caretaker at a primary school. I know and trust my dog (one has since died of a heart attack) but if either had attacked any of the children (even the ones I didnt like) and would not come under conrol I would not have hesitated to put their safety about the welfare of my dogs.

I have been attacked by dogs and its not a pleasant thing I dont advocate vilence for violences sake but Id just like to ask anyone here in a situation where a child is being harmed by an animal you love would you hesitate ofr reasons of animal welfare.

I used to work in an industrial butchers with an abbatoir attached I saw day in and day out worse things than described on the other thread happend to hundreds of animals, just ones not considered as cute and cudly as dogs.

one love

Interesting. I really did not know self-defense was considered an illegal act.

Nor that accidental death resulting from self-defense was also considered an illegal act.

Nor that merely describing such an historical incident would be considered incitement to commit an illegal act.

I think someone needs to learn how to read.

For the record, I happen to like more dogs more than I like most people.

I, and other close friends and family members, have rescued countless dogs from abusive and neglectful situations, often putting ourselves at risk, physically and legally.
At least two of the seven dogs currently in our 'pack' are in the abused category, and the rest neglected.

Sometimes the pack 'expands', but those we cannot keep are placed in good homes.

I said I like most dogs more than I like most people.

I especially dislike self-righteous, arrogant, and stupid ones, who appear incapable of comprehending plain English

Sigh, clearly Blicky most people don't use their real name and have a user name, clearly my real name is not Strangelystrange, however if you had read what I said you would have seen that I said what I disliked was someone changeing their user name specifically for a particular arguement and they should say what they have to say with usual name.
.
Anyway I shall go no further down that road as the poster who changed their name is clearly an animal lover and suffered a loss not that long ago so shall let it drop, as long as no one else raises the isssue.

Agreed its very important to teach children they cannot rush up to a strange dog I think this ties in with my point about education being the key. Not just how to behave around dogs but also when either buying a dog or getting one from rescue - how to find good breeders, good rescues to ensure you get a dog that been either bred for temperament or assessed.

You accused me and another poster of having the same name, now its changing my name. As I said I had another name years ago and have had to join again with a new name. I joined because a link was posted on a dog site so yes some new members will appear - those that have a love of dogs!

I know of no lose that I have suffered recently - unless it was my lighter! So please stop with this silly vendatta and realise that some people can have similar opinions that may oppose yours.

I might be wrong, but I think he might mean me! I've just realised my PS was slightly out of date - I didn't lose Buster in Jan this year, but last year. Last time I updated it was before the anniversary, so I've changed it now. Especially as I don't have Pongo anymore either.

I'm so excited - I've never been accused of creating more accounts to support myself before, and I've always felt I was missing out something.

Could be wrong, maybe he didn't mean me.

No, I said you are a current user who has made up/changed names. To call it a vendeta is rubbish as you well know. People sometimes make up names to support their own arguements and it is a fair comment to point this out. There has been a lot of yikesing going on and a thread closed so to comment is particulary relevant.

Greyhounds - welcome to h2g2.

In general, most people who are members of h2g2 are members for more than one reason. For example, I write occasional guide entries, post occasional constructive comments about others, and also participate in debates of various kinds and am a member of a few h2g2 societies. Nearly all established members ('researchers') here have multiple interests, and newer members also regularly involve themselves in more than one h2g2 activity right from the start.

So it's unusual for new researchers to come straight to a single conversation, and to have a username that is relevant to that conversation. When that happens, people suspect the new account of being a 'sock puppet' - that is, that you're an existing researcher who has registered a new account for some reason. There's a history of this on this site - some people do it to make a point on a particular issue that they don't want linked to their main identity, and some do it to create cheerleaders for their particular views, so it looks like they have more support than they do.

But it's been explained that you found a link to this conversation from another site, and I think that explanation has been accepted.