To All Dog Owners..

[Cyclone]

If a dog were bigger than you, or the same size it would battle you for control of the pack. If a Lion were the size of a domestic cat, it probably wouldn't attack you. So you don't really have a point here.

 

I've seen an article that suggests that we've bread modern domestic dogs to be permanently in a state of adolescence regarding their psychology, hence why they accept that we are the pack leaders, an adolescent dog would never challenge an adult one in a natural situation.

 

A hungry lion would quite happily eat you if there wasn't a convenient antelope around.

I neither suggested nor implied that. What I said was, that if someone wants a dog that doesn't need much exercise, then a greyhound is a good option.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyhound

 

has some useful greyhound info.

And I didn't disagree that they are low exercise dogs. You did seem to be implying that they do not require any time to run though.

Which is the point I was making, all dogs need some time off the lead to run, even the ones that you don't believe are correctly trained.

 

Generally, it's recommended that greyhounds are kept on a leash unless there's a properly enclosed space to run them in-

 

 

 

but that's the case for any breed of dog that's bred to chase prey- their chase instinct will tend to override their call-back training.

And even with dogs where this isn't the case, the most well trained dog may one day ignore the recall command, because it's not a robot and may well decide that what it's just seen/smelt or heard is more interesting than you shouting.

 

You didn't answer my question about the dog that is well trained, always comes back, and then one day doesn't. Was it never well trained, should it always have been on a lead?

[onewheeldave]

I used the post regarding the Greyhounds as meerly the most recently example of your lack of in depth knowledge of the Kanine phsyche.

 

But, as you now know, what I said about greyhounds was correct, so it's hardly a good example of a 'lack of knowledge'- the only person who was wrong about greyhounds was you

 

Do you think there's a possibility I might be right on some of the other things I said?

[Stomp]

But, as you now know, what I said about greyhounds was correct, so it's hardly a good example of a 'lack of knowledge'- the only person who was wrong about greyhounds was you

 

Yes, what you said about greyhouds was correct, so no not a good example.

 

Do you think there's a possibility I might be right on some of the other things I said?

 

No.

[Cyclone]

When a dog runs at someone, they can't tell whether it's just headstrong, or, if it's a biter. Either way, the dog is out of control and should not be off the lead.

 

The dog only has that right if it's trained and can be controlled by its owner.

 

Going right back to page one, your second paragraph here just isn't true is it. It might be how you wish the situation was, but it's not the situation.

 

And regarding your first sentence I've mentioned several times that a dog that has ignored a recall command is completely different to a dog that is running at a person, they are two very different scenarios. You've failed to acknowledge that this is the case.

[L00b]

But a dog does not randomly attack anything that is smaller than itself.

Mine does. And, more problematically, anything that is bigger as well. It's not random, either, but quite deliberate - body language is clear as a nose on a face.

 

Not something I'm proud of at all (although he has his moments, with cats, rats and squirrels), and something we have consistently tried to train out of him since we rescued him 2 years ago: probably removed far too early from the mother (no social skills what-so-ever), consistant abuse (and quite grave, involving broken limbs and cigarettes, by the look of things - all acc. to vet checkups) in his first year, followed by a few weeks' worth of ferality before the local catcher got him, topped up by a few weeks of (not the most salubrious of) refuge, and a couple of attacks (by unleashed dogs) since...do not make a patterdale friendly with, well, anything (yet it's vastly more family friendly and 'loving' than the wire dachs I've had in the past).

 

Recall training has been tried insistently and consistently, but that's just a plain no. Too much prey drive/instinct, even the dog trainer/whisperer gave up (and I've trained wire dachs, not as if I don't know the first thing about training headstrong terriers).

 

So, yes, it's permanently on a leash when walkies, plus a mouthguard when I know many other owners will be out and about, e.g. weekends. All responsibility expressly declined when other (unleashed) dogs walk up to him, despite me warning their owners against letting them, and strangers walking up to him always warned the same. Can't objectively do more.

[onewheeldave]

Which is the point I was making, all dogs need some time off the lead to run, even the ones that you don't believe are correctly trained.

 

 

But they don't. Some people never let them off the lead- as long as they get enough walking they'll be fine.

 

With young greyhounds, it's recommended to run them off the lead, but, only in a properly enclosed space- because greyhounds will bolt off after small animals.

 

If the owner doesn't have access to such a space, then they need to get a dog that either doesn't need that level of exercise, or, a breed of dog that can be trained to not bolt off out of control.

 

This is the point- dog ownership is a big responsibility, and potential owners need to do research and/or get advice from someone who knows what they're talking about, so they get a type of dog that's suitable to their means.

 

Retired Greyhounds are a suitable breed for those without a big house or those who want a dog that requires relatively little exercise.

 

Also, by getting a retired greyhound, you're doing the dog a favour, as once they're retired, they're just kept in dog homes.

 

Getting a greyhound puppy, I imagine, would be a somewhat more serious undertaking.

 

---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 17:25 ----------

 

 

 

No.

Well, why not trudge up some of these claims that you consider to be incorrect/'silly', and maybe I can show that they're just as correct as my claim about greyhounds?

 

---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 17:29 ----------

 

Originally Posted by onewheeldave View Post

When a dog runs at someone, they can't tell whether it's just headstrong, or, if it's a biter. Either way, the dog is out of control and should not be off the lead.

 

The dog only has that right if it's trained and can be controlled by its owner.

Going right back to page one, your second paragraph here just isn't true is it. It might be how you wish the situation was, but it's not the situation.

 

And regarding your first sentence I've mentioned several times that a dog that has ignored a recall command is completely different to a dog that is running at a person, they are two very different scenarios. You've failed to acknowledge that this is the case.

 

I said the dog only has a right to be off the lead if it's trained and under the owners control. I stand by that. I never said anything about the law. I think you'd have a hard time arguing the contrary i.e. that a dog does have a right to be off the lead if it's untrained and out of control.

 

I don't know what you mean about an ignored recall not being different to running at a person? It makes no sense to me- if you clarify what point you're trying to make there, I'll let you know whether I agree or disagree.

[sedith]

 

This is the point- dog ownership is a big responsibility, and potential owners need to do research and/or get advice from someone who knows what they're talking about, so they get a type of dog that's suitable to their means.

 

I agree totally with the above statement, thats it in a nutshell!

 

The amount of young couples I see walking about with a pair of child substitutes, dogs taken out for a 15 minute run in the morning, both owners then go off to work for 9hrs, leave the dogs in the garage, come home and take them out early evening and then to bed. This is the scenario of quite a few people around where I live. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a dog!

[cheese 69]

i have 3 american bulldogs, not small dogs but i walk all 3 of the lead in brinsworth park, if people are near by i put them on the lead as some people are scared of dogs/big 1s, i used to have a massive fear of dogs but now im over it. but i understand how people feel, so i put them on a lead if anyone is close, even tho they dont run up to them and try an lick them or anythin.

[Stomp]

 

Well, why not trudge up some of these claims that you consider to be incorrect/'silly', and maybe I can show that they're just as correct as my claim about greyhounds?

 

Sure. Here you go.

 

.......The dog only has that right if it's trained and can be controlled by its owner.

 

.... if you can't call it back, it ain't trained dog off the lease.

 

Dogs are exercised by walking on a lead. If the owner gets the dog trained so it always comes back when called, then it's appropriate to let it off the lead.

 

.........A properly trained dog always comes back when called. Admittedly, some dogs can't be trained to do that, either because, as is common, uneducated owners get a puppy and leave it way too late before they realise it's out of control, or, it's one of those breeds that have been bred to chase anything that moves.

 

...if the dog can't be controlled (called back), exercise it on a lease.

 

A properly trained dog will come back when called. Some dogs can't be trained (either due to the owner, or being a breed that's bred to chase)........Obviously an untrainable dog can't be trained.

 

If the dog can't be trained, then it needs to be exercised on a lead. Obviously, it can't be exercised as intensly if not let off the lead, but, if the owners gone for a breed that can't be trained to be called back, or simply not been bothered to train it, then they have to accept that they're going to have to spend more time walking it.

 

Some people never let them off the lead- as long as they get enough walking they'll be fine.

 

This is the point- dog ownership is a big responsibility, and potential owners need to do research and/or get advice from someone who knows what they're talking about, so they get a type of dog that's suitable to their means.

 

---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 16:44 ----------

 

I said the dog only has a right to be off the lead if it's trained and under the owners control. I stand by that. I never said anything about the law. I think you'd have a hard time arguing the contrary i.e. that a dog does have a right to be off the lead if it's untrained and out of control.

 

 

Actually, the law disagrees with you. An offense is only committed if the dog is dangerously out of control. Just because the dog doesn't come back to you when called, doesn't mean that:

 

 

a) Its out of control

b) It is dangerous

 

 

I don't know what you mean about an ignored recall not being different to running at a person? It makes no sense to me- if you clarify what point you're trying to make there, I'll let you know whether I agree or disagree.

 

Your dog is off the lead having great fun running about like a madman. You call it back. It doesn't come. That is an ignored recall.

 

Your dog is off the lead having great fun running about like a madman. It spots a person walking on the opposite side of the field, and bolts after them. You call your dog, and it continues running headlong at said person. That is running at a person.

[CELCAD]

See how much arguing and trouble this is causing. Would be much better for all concerned if NO ONE had dogs