Saul Goodman wrote:
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.