Controlling my dog fouling outside someone's house

[rubydazzler]

where would you suggest I train him to go? 'Cos in principal the idea of having places to do a poo is a good one, I just wonder how realistic it would be to implement it.

I wasn't suggesting that people train to a specific place, although in a garden that would be the place where it's easiest to clear it up? Right next to the bin maybe?

 

What I was getting at was if the dog is trained to relieve itse'f on command, as outlined earlier by PT, the walker could make sure that it wasn't right outside someone's house or on their grass verge. Give it the go ahead when it can be kerbed near a drain, or on a bit of wasteground. Or even to wait until you get to the doggy bin in the park?

 

To me that would make the owner, the dog and everyone else happy bunnies. Especially if you also used the newspaper trick to catch it! Liking that idea!

 

It does seem that dog walkers have somehow got the idea that any disapproval of their management of their pet's toilet habits is wrong and they should be able to do just what they like, unless they happen to be a working dog and then they have to follow the same rules as the rest of us. It seems relatively simple to train them, just the same way that we all get trained, to go to the loo at convenient times, so why not do it?

[denlin]

I'm afraid that you're wrong there too.

 

Large dogs are notoriously difficult to rehome and so many of them are put to sleep just because homes aren't there for them. The same applies to Staffies.

 

There's a documented case of an RSPCA inspector attending a house where the owner had died and not even taking the 10 GSDs that were in the house to a vet- they were killed before even being put in the van.

 

whose fault is that - why would anyone have 10 dogs, they may have been in terrible states. The others cannot be rehomed because they are considered a danger to public due again to irresponsible owners, no-one with children could risk it

[medusa]

who is overbreeding the dogs? is it the rspca? no they are left with the aftermath of irresponsible owners

 

Nobody is suggesting that the RSPCA are to blame for irresponsible breeding.

 

However, the RSPCA are neither the law makers nor are they perfect when it comes to what is right for animals.

 

There are very well documented instances of care and decisions from the RSPCA, including locally, which are very much against the principles and rules of other animal charities, so the RSPCA aren't always right, aren't always 'the best place for animals' and cannot ever be assumed to be the only rescue which does good work.

[medusa]

whose fault is that - why would anyone have 10 dogs, they may have been in terrible states. The others cannot be rehomed because they are considered a danger to public due again to irresponsible owners, no-one with children could risk it

 

And your proof of this is where?

 

The dogs were hungry because their owner had died and they had missed a few meals, but that is not why they were put to sleep.

 

If the RSPCA had contacted a specialist rescue then those dogs would be in a completely different position, but as it was the decision to kill them was taken purely because GSDs don't do well in kennels.

 

Are you determined to prove that everyone other than you and the RSPCA is a bad owner?

[denlin]

Nobody is suggesting that the RSPCA are to blame for irresponsible breeding.

 

However, the RSPCA are neither the law makers nor are they perfect when it comes to what is right for animals.

 

There are very well documented instances of care and decisions from the RSPCA, including locally, which are very much against the principles and rules of other animal charities, so the RSPCA aren't always right, aren't always 'the best place for animals' and cannot ever be assumed to be the only rescue which does good work.

 

I understand that, I support blue cross, but I think RSPCA are being made scapegoats when the real problem is irresponsible dog owners who want status dogs

[scottsmith]

So someone asks you politely to not let your dog foul outside your house, and you get angry? When you even say that you won't let it foul outside your own house, you take it outside someone else's house to do it?

 

If you can't control where you allow your dog to go, you aren't in control of your dog and you should not be taking him out in public because it isn't safe to have a dog you can't control out in public.

 

Oh wait, the bold bit suggests it wasn't actually the dog that was fouling, it was you?

 

Haha, oh I do love that sentence.

 

So let me get this straight, just because I can't stop my dog from going to the toilet, I'm not in control of him? Seriously?

 

To the OP, don't worry, you're not in the wrong here, you cleaned up after your Dog and no harm was done. Continue to walk your dog wherever you like! (And where the Law permits you to walk).

[peak-polly]

whose fault is that - why would anyone have 10 dogs, they may have been in terrible states. The others cannot be rehomed because they are considered a danger to public due again to irresponsible owners, no-one with children could risk it

 

Not all dog owners have kids. Infact my husband and i have recently been thinking about getting another dog as company for the one we have now and will no doubt be a rescue dog.

In the case of the RSPCA inspector putting down all ten dogs, i think they should have been given a chance to find a new home for them, its not 100% that they were all a 'danger'

[denlin]

And your proof of this is where?

 

The dogs were hungry because their owner had died and they had missed a few meals, but that is not why they were put to sleep.

 

If the RSPCA had contacted a specialist rescue then those dogs would be in a completely different position, but as it was the decision to kill them was taken purely because GSDs don't do well in kennels.

 

Are you determined to prove that everyone other than you and the RSPCA is a bad owner?

 

you have just answered your own question GSDs don't do well in kennels, so would they not have been taken to some other kennel. No I don't have all the facts you seem to have. My question is how big was this house that had TEN DOGS in it and how long had they been there without food?

 

Also I was not referring to GSD's in last part of thread

[medusa]

you have just answered your own question GSDs don't do well in kennels, so would they not have been taken to some other kennel. No I don't have all the facts you seem to have. My question is how big was this house that had TEN DOGS in it and how long had they been there without food?

 

Also I was not referring to GSD's in last part of thread

 

In that instance it would have taken one phone call to GSDRescue for the dogs to have gone into specialist care, but no, the RSPCA in their wisdom chose to just kill the dogs instead. This is just an example of things that other rescues disagree with the RSPCA over- there are hundreds of other examples.

 

Neither you nor I know how big the house was, yet your automatic assumption is that the dogs were in a dreadful state and merited being put to sleep and my assumption was that the dogs at least merited being taken to be assessed by a vet and to try to find them a place in rescue first.

[denlin]

you're right we don't know so why assume the RSPCA acted irresponsibly?. Nobody should have ten dogs in a house, let alone GSD's