Do you have trouble with dog owners?

The responsibility of a dog owner when taking a dog out in public is to minimize the threat of the animal, both to itself and to others. While a leash is not guaranteed to prevent harm, it does allow a greater degree of control by the owner, more tangible than voice commands and more visible to others than a friendly disposition. That the owner asserts that there is no threat is not the point, and is actually a non sequiter, nor is it proven by a flawless track record. At most this only implies a certain likelihood, not surety. And it is the owner’s responsibility to decrease the likelihood of attack or injury as far as possible.

An owner is responsible for the actions of their pet as far as they are able to control the pet's actions. A pet/owner duo is not an isolated system, and can affect, and be affected by, their environment in expected and unexpected ways. A leash allows a greater degree of physical control, and protects the animal, its owner, and others, especially in unforseen situations.

And to try and deflect criticism by invoking other laws that are ignored regularly is flawed logic, a form of ad hominem attack called tu quoque (“you also”). It seeks to attack the critic rather than their argument by calling them a hypocrite. It does not absolve you of blame, nor does it invalidate the argument from a logical perspective.

Best response on your side of the fence so far.

The responsibility of a dog owner when taking a dog out in public is to minimize the threat of the animal, both to itself and to others. While a leash is not guaranteed to prevent harm, it does allow a greater degree of control by the owner, more tangible than voice commands and more visible to others than a friendly disposition. That the owner asserts that there is no threat is not the point, and is actually a non sequiter, nor is it proven by a flawless track record. At most this only implies a certain likelihood, not surety. And it is the owner’s responsibility to decrease the likelihood of attack or injury as far as possible.

Agreed. However, when the threat is as low as the threat from other unforeseeable and unlikely situations, where is the line drawn? Like I've said, I've got nearly a decade and thousands of miles with my dog with no problems. Maybe she's the exception to the rule, but if you want to drop risk to as close to zero as possible, why let dogs out in public at all?

An owner is responsible for the actions of their pet as far as they are able to control the pet's actions. A pet/owner duo is not an isolated system, and can affect, and be affected by, their environment in expected and unexpected ways. A leash allows a greater degree of physical control, and protects the animal, its owner, and others, especially in unforseen situations.

Agreed. But again, how far do we take this? Have you ever seen how well behaved a dog trained as a service dog is? These are extreme examples, but the point is that it is possible to drop the likelihood of bad behavior to zero. Most dogs aren't as trained as service dogs, but I'd guess that even a standard well-behaved dog is under 0.1% likely to cause any harm.

And to try and deflect criticism by invoking other laws that are ignored regularly is flawed logic, a form of ad hominem attack called tu quoque (“you also”). It seeks to attack the critic rather than their argument by calling them a hypocrite. It does not absolve you of blame, nor does it invalidate the argument from a logical perspective.

Here's where I disagree. No one opposed to my views (that it's fine to let well-behaved dogs off-leash) has doubted the fact that there are 'good' dogs. Their arguments are that:

1)Others don't know which dogs are good and which are bad which creates confusion and wariness all around.

2)It is against the law (shame on you!), a law which is designed for safety of everyone.

3)It's selfish for one to disobey leash laws because it puts your needs/wants above those around you.

I brought up speeding because I know that statistically, it is something that most people do. No one here has denied speeding. Speed limits are meant to keep people safe. The people opposed to my views are calling me selfish for my actions. They want to be able to break their laws (safely, I assume), but as soon as someone else breaks a law that they don't like (safely), they invoke legality and selfishness. Pretty much the ultimate selfishness if you think about it. If there's a better time for an I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I kick to the groin )tu quoque), I'd like to hear about it.

1. My rott/dane/boxer/mastiff mix would go after other dogs (to an extent, she would dominate them, but isn't too mean) if I let her off the leash. ]

2. My other dog is independent if docile. If she was off leash she would be at risk of chasing something or at least doing whatever she feels like doing.

3. My first dog was a hound who would always try to escape and chase.

My dogs are/were worse than most (and I do other work with dogs, including training them), but there aren't many dogs that are even trainable to be able to heel and obey without a leash. they are great animals but most aren't made for living in the city wo a leash or care. You immature individuals who choose to let your dogs run around in the city will eventually kill most any dog.

However, when the threat is as low as the threat from other unforeseeable and unlikely situations, where is the line drawn?

Given that the events are unforeseeable as you say, I don't see how you can judge that the threats are equivalent, given one set's apparent unpredictability. Given such uncertainty, it is useful to come up with baseline safety criteria, which includes a leash. It acts as a tangible barrier. Going to the extreme and suggesting a dog never be let out in public infringes on well-being of the pet. The owner must decrease the potential harm to and of the pet while not infringing on the rights of others to occupy a safe environment.

Like I've said, I've got nearly a decade and thousands of miles with my dog with no problems.

Your own personal history with a pet is not a guarantor of docility or safety, even without considering the outside factors like other dogs and their owners. To expect others to accept such an arrangement uncritically, especially if it could lead to injury, is not reasonable. Nor should you accept it, since your own legal accountability, and your pet's safety, rests on this rather untenable, and potentially unpredictable, foundation.

Have you ever seen how well behaved a dog trained as a service dog is? These are extreme examples, but the point is that it is possible to drop the likelihood of bad behavior to zero.

Yes. I also know that a service dog must go through extensive training and refresher courses to become one. It is also marked or labelled as such so others may know the dog's function. It serves to define the legal and societal parameters where the dog is accepted.

Most dogs aren't as trained as service dogs, but I'd guess that even a standard well-behaved dog is under 0.1% likely to cause any harm.

That seems like a dubious statistic, especially in light of the unforeseeable situations you mentioned. You might consider finding a source that can be cited and will support your argument.

The people opposed to my views are calling me selfish for my actions. They want to be able to break their laws (safely, I assume), but as soon as someone else breaks a law that they don't like (safely), they invoke legality and selfishness. Pretty much the ultimate selfishness if you think about it. If there's a better time for an I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I kick to the groin (tu quoque), I'd like to hear about it.

Whether an accusation of hypocrisy is apt makes no logical difference. It does not change the validity of the argument, nor does it result in a stalemate. While both parties may be guilty of selfishness, selfishness is not the issue. One must still respond to the arguments.

Injured By Dog wrote:

Do others have problems with dogs?

Wow. I admit, this is the first time I clicked on this thread. Sure, I have seen the title but was too lazy to click on it due to other interest or thought the thread was too much to read. Okay, not that I got that out of the way...

Every time I run on this particular route, I have this annoying guy and his dog (who is not on a leash) and EVERY time I pass them, the brown big poodle immediately comes towards me and tries to 'trip' or get in my pathway. The "I'm over the weight middle age guy' (wanna be jogger), totally ignores his pesky dog and acts like nothing is wrong. I normally wouldn't care if this happened once or maybe twice, but seriously I am getting ticked off and now I want to kick the dog out of my way!

Do dog owners think they are SUPREME?

[quote]Saul Goodman wrote:

1. You're breaking the law. - Don't give an eff (see above)

You SO suck you arrogant douche.

Many of your statements make it seem to me that you think I am against leashing completely, or perhaps that I think everyone has the right to un-leash their dogs. I want to make it clear that I don't think poorly behaved dogs should be let off-leash. And I don't think that leash laws don't serve a purpose. If you've read my comments throughout the thread, you should understand a few things about my stance:

I know there are bad dogs whose owners let them off, I don't defend them.

I realize it's technically against the law.

I don't care because it's not harming anyone (when I or other good dogs/owners do it).

People need to chill when they see harmless dogs off-leash.

That being said, many of your statements warrant no reply.

Going to the extreme and suggesting a dog never be let out in public infringes on well-being of the pet. The owner must decrease the potential harm to and of the pet while not infringing on the rights of others to occupy a safe environment.

Maybe not a 'no dogs out in public at all' law, but 'dogs only allowed out in designated dog (on or off-leash) areas' law would suffice in reducing the risk of harm to others? I mean, if we're only talking about doing our very best to lower the risk as far as possible.

Your own personal history with a pet is not a guarantor of docility or safety, even without considering the outside factors like other dogs and their owners. To expect others to accept such an arrangement uncritically, especially if it could lead to injury, is not reasonable. Nor should you accept it, since your own legal accountability, and your pet's safety, rests on this rather untenable, and potentially unpredictable, foundation.

How do we assess risk in every other area of our life? It's always a function of time and damage. Of course a decade of having a good dog is not a guarantee. But you're looking for 'guarantees' on everything before you deem something 'safe', we're going to have to stop living life at all. I've stepped out my front door dozens of thousands of times, but that doesn't guarantee the next time I won't be mauled by a lion. It's a risk I'm willing to take given my history of not being mauled by a lion. And I think it's perfectly reasonable for humans to be able to assess whether a dog is going to harm them or not. But above all I believe owners should be better about knowing their dogs. It's unfortunate that many don't, but again, I don't defend those people. I'm talking about good dogs/owners.

Yes. I also know that a service dog must go through extensive training and refresher courses to become one. It is also marked or labelled as such so others may know the dog's function. It serves to define the legal and societal parameters where the dog is accepted.

My point was that it is possible for the danger level of a dog to drop to zero. Or as close to zero as you're going to get. I stated this point in the post you quoted.

That seems like a dubious statistic, especially in light of the unforeseeable situations you mentioned. You might consider finding a source that can be cited and will support your argument.

It's not a statistic. It's a guess like my post reads. But it's a guess based on anecdotal experience. I spend a lot of time in areas where there's a healthy mix of on and off-leash dogs (not designated as an off-leash area) and have rarely encountered problems. Never personally, but my dog was nipped at. I must have come across ten thousand dogs in the last 8 years, about half off-leash and only 2 or 3 nips (one, the worst one, was a leashed dog). That's my personal 'statistic'.

Whether an accusation of hypocrisy is apt makes no logical difference. It does not change the validity of the argument, nor does it result in a stalemate. While both parties may be guilty of selfishness, selfishness is not the issue. One must still respond to the arguments.

I guess you're right here, but that's not really my argument. My argument is and has been that some (maybe many) dogs are fine to be off-leash and not harm anyone. Without explicitly saying so, but by their actions, those opposing me have said it's safe for them to speed. And if if that doesn't change the validity of their argument against me, it certainly defends my actions to themselves. I'm guessing at some point this conundrum will result in a black hole. Or at the very least, a mushroom cloud.

Thank you. I appreciate someone making me turn my brain above the 'dim' setting in this thread.

kpack wrote:

1. My rott/dane/boxer/mastiff mix would go after other dogs (to an extent, she would dominate them, but isn't too mean) if I let her off the leash. ]

2. My other dog is independent if docile. If she was off leash she would be at risk of chasing something or at least doing whatever she feels like doing.

3. My first dog was a hound who would always try to escape and chase.

My dogs are/were worse than most (and I do other work with dogs, including training them), but there aren't many dogs that are even trainable to be able to heel and obey without a leash. they are great animals but most aren't made for living in the city wo a leash or care. You immature individuals who choose to let your dogs run around in the city will eventually kill most any dog.

Train your dogs!!!

All dogs are trainable and dogs are the most trainable animals, so stop making excuses. Dogs need to be trained for their own brains as well. They LIKE discipline. Not having them trained is not ding them any favors. I have my dog on hand signals now, so I don't have to make any noise when I walk her late at night.

You've never encountered a feist dog.

I always keep my dog leashed when walking her. She is a great dog, very submissive. But I do not allow children to come up to her, I make Lucy sit first and then tell the children to stand still so she can come up to them. It teaches them patience and since she is friendly the reward is to pat the dog. If someone asks me if my dog bites I always say "She hasn't bitten anyone....yet."

He said he keeps his dog of the leash on non leash designated areas. Nothing wrong with that. If you want dogs on the leash where you are running, then run in areas where it is required.

Silly question. There are lots of dog owners - some good, some bad. This is true of any large population not specifically selected for "goodness/badness".

I think it's just precious that you took the time to read the thread and all of my posts to be able to formulate a decent response/question to the topic at hand.

Say, bro: you ever exceed the speed limit in your car? Ever? Do tell.

OK, I\'ll admit it. I hate dogs. I have a couple but only because the wife wanted them. I feed them and pick up their crap, but I have no love for them. I don\'t feel they are part of my family and I hope one of them (that I really don\'t like) dies soon from cancer.

I don\'t have any problems on my runs, but I would love the opportunity to hurt a dog defending myself.

The only closest story I had was when I was running with a previous dog (the only one I really liked) and another dog behind an invisible fence charged at my dog and got through the barrier. I picked up a big thick branch and hit the dog as hard as I could in the face. It stunned it and we continued on our way.

But I think back to that and I\'m embarrassed to admit that I really enjoyed the feeling of hurting the dog. I wish it was even more aggressive so I could have permanently hurt it (broke leg, etc).

This is a not a troll, but how I really feel. I\'m sorry if it offends any of you. I really think most dog lovers are nuts.

OK I am officially sick of dogs chasing me and more so their arrogant #@% stupid

owners that think it's ok to not leash them in a public park. Two scenarios this week have officially pissed me off. I checked for a dog warden but we have none and no animal control to deal with this in the area only the police.

Scenario #1 - Mon. - Myself and my 5 yr. old son go out on a 1.75 jog in mendon ponds NY. Some dog starts barking and acting aggressive with no leash. My five yr. old son looks at the owner and says "where is leash?" The guys tells him the leash is invisible as he holds the dog. My son asks me if the leash is invisible and I tell him " No the man is a liar." Moral if you can't leash your dog I will sick my 5 yr. old on you to put you in your place:)

Scenario #2 - Today - Two ladies have two unleashed dogs. One of them is a pit and it almost takes me down because it is excited. I shake my head and say "You know your supposed to have a leash on them." Woman says, "There friendly they won't hurt anyone." I say, "Sure people get hurt all the time and it's the law" She yells "Why because your running so fast (sarcastically)" I say, "It's ok you can talk to the game warden / police." I then say , "It must be tough work thinking your right all the time." I then call the park office and report it and the police. Next time I will stop and call the police immediately on her. Moral of the story: I'm sick of belligerent dog owners and they can deal with the police and a ticket.

P.S. I am seriously starting to consider carrying mace as my miles increase for an upcoming trail marathon...

bro you mad?

you sound like a freak

Yup you caught me. I'm sick of the owners more than dogs. Love dogs hate belligerent owners:)

Saul Goodman wrote:

Wrong. My dog being off-leash may *become* your business once she attacks you, but as it has been for the last 8 years she has been anybody's business at all.

Guess how many dog bites we see in the ER by dogs "who have never hurt anyone before"?

That would be all of them, Watson.

Some interesting reading for anyone that says "Not my dog." or "This breed is safe it's just bad owners." Look at several things because I have studied this before while contemplating dog ownership with my young family.

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

1.Take a look at which breeds are most involved... easy

2. Take a look at who is being attacked...(Obviously the people we want to protect most.)

3.Take a look at the relationship to the dog (Usually kill someone they know)

4. Oh yeah since most of these attacks happen at residences to the very young and old you guessed it there was no leash on the dogs.

Sadly even my five year old knows that you should leash your dog but full grown adults get upset when you ask them to leash there dog or better yet lie to a kid asking where their leash is ...

Oh yeah I'll keep calling the cops on unleashed dogs that chase me and my young children..