Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 nectarprime wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 nectarprime wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Just keep it on a leash when walking and such. If a rottweiler came running at me I'd shoot it without hesitating.

Now I remember why I blocked this guy..... not the sharpest tool in the shed.

So you're saying that if you had a means to defend yourself from a potential deadly animal attack, you wouldn't?

So you're saying that if you saw any dog running towards you, you would pull put a gun and attempt to shoot a moving target, potentially endangering innocent people around you?

Nobody's innocent

Let me tell you about the last Rottweiler I met.

My dad found him wandering down the alley with no collar and a broken leg (which the vet would later determine was likely broken when the dog tried to climb back into a car after he had been kicked out of it... and someone closed the door on his leg! ). Since my dad's a nice guy and very civic-minded, he carefully herded the injured dog into our detached garage, put out a bowl of water, and called animal control.

Animal control arrives, they go to the gararge, and the dog meets them at the door... with a tennis ball he'd found somewhere in the garage. Even with a leg that had been deliberately broken, the only thing he wanted was to play!

Well, that sealed my dad's fate; seeing that he had to adopt the dog, and the only possible name for a dog that playful was 'Buddy'. They had him for over a decade; he had just reached full size when they found him. And the entire time he was the sweetest overgrown puppy I've ever known. The wire-haired terrier they'd had when I was growing up was much more vicious than Buudy.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There are no bad breeds; there are no bad dogs; there are only bad owners.

Bangbangboom wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Bangbangboom wrote:No such thing as bad dogs just bad owners.

No, there are bad dogs. Afghan Hounds are so dumb it is almost impossible to train them, and Bulldogs are "bad" dogs in the sense that they have been bred to all be born genetically defective. They can be well-behaved, sure (although they're not much smarter than the Afghan Hounds) but they are "bad" dogs in the sense that the AMC Gremlin was a "bad" car.

stupid =/= bad

I disagree. You're allocating "bad" to your own personal notions of "good" & "evil". I, however, am correctly allocating the term "bad" to its proper use to imply "of poor quality; inferior or defective". Hence my statement that Bulldogs are bad dogs the way AMC Gremlins were bad cars. High quality dogs are those that can be trained to tasks; thus dogs that do not take to training are bad dogs. Stupid dogs are less able to take to training. Afghan Hounds are slightly smarter than rabbits. Therefore Afghan Hounds are bad dogs.

All I know is that Afghan hounds are fething weird looking for a dog.

Afghans are indeed weird as hell.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Mind you also, a 120lb animal running at you with teeth is a potentially lethal threat under the law.

Are you sure it's "the law"? Are you sure it's not just a thing you made up, right now, on the spot?

In Texas dogs are property. You can shoot a loose dog on sight, especially after a spate of attacks by Rottweilers and Pit Bulls occurred and people started shooting them. Further if I have a rottweiler charging me, I am in imminent fear for my person (this has been adjudicated).

Control your fething dog.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:
Let me tell you about the last Rottweiler I met.

My dad found him wandering down the alley with no collar and a broken leg (which the vet would later determine was likely broken when the dog tried to climb back into a car after he had been kicked out of it... and someone closed the door on his leg! ). Since my dad's a nice guy and very civic-minded, he carefully herded the injured dog into our detached garage, put out a bowl of water, and called animal control.

Animal control arrives, they go to the gararge, and the dog meets them at the door... with a tennis ball he'd found somewhere in the garage. Even with a leg that had been deliberately broken, the only thing he wanted was to play!

Well, that sealed my dad's fate; seeing that he had to adopt the dog, and the only possible name for a dog that playful was 'Buddy'. They had him for over a decade; he had just reached full size when they found him. And the entire time he was the sweetest overgrown puppy I've ever known. The wire-haired terrier they'd had when I was growing up was much more vicious than Buudy.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There are no bad breeds; there are no bad dogs; there are only bad owners.

Agreed. Properly trained, they are just big dogs, with more belly surface area for needed petting.

Any dog has the potential to attack. Even dogs raised in the most loving homes, because dogs are just like people, and some just have more instinct to attack, and just might perceive an otherwise mundane situation entirely incorrectly.

I mean, I love dogs, I've had them all my life. But the dog I have right now, well for some reason something geared in his brain meant he just really hates human babies and very small kids. Seriously, just goes off his nut, growling and slobbering if he sees someone who's a couple of years old or young. First time we learned about this was when a friend of my sister brought her newborn around, and my dog went straight at him. Fortunately, he's a Cavalier King Charles and those things are tiny and lack working jaws, so I was able to grab him before he got to the baby, and he was unlikely to have done serious damage if I hadn't grabbed him in time.

And that's really the point. Any dog can do something stupid, and while raising well them can reduce that risk immensely, it cannot remove the risk entirely. So the question then becomes 'if it does happen, do I really want it to be with a dog that I can't overpower, and who's jaw can inflict life threatening injuries in a few seconds?'

Or, you know, just get a little dog. You also don't have to walk them anywhere near as long.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Mind you also, a 120lb animal running at you with teeth is a potentially lethal threat under the law.

Are you sure it's "the law"? Are you sure it's not just a thing you made up, right now, on the spot?

In Texas dogs are property. You can shoot a loose dog on sight, especially after a spate of attacks by Rottweilers and Pit Bulls occurred and people started shooting them. Further if I have a rottweiler charging me, I am in imminent fear for my person (this has been adjudicated).

Control your fething dog.

Be that as it may, still waiting for that law you cited previously, the one that explicitly indicated 120lbs (not 119 or less) were a lethal threat under the law. Maybe you can add the law that says you're allowed to shoot loose dogs on sight in Texas? Because, to be honest, I'm pretty sure you're making this up.

I DID find this section of Texas law, though:

3) Shooting “stray” Dogs and Cats (Penal Code 42.09 Animal Cruelty). Any person who shoots a non-livestock animal, which includes any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured, can be charged with a felony offense. Penal Code 42.092 of the State of Texas law states that a person must have the owner’s consent to kill the animal (exceptions to prosecution are provided in Section 42.092(e)(1)). It is clear that a “stray” dog or cat either has no owner or that the person who shoots the animal did not get the owner’s consent.

I mean, I understand that if you're at imminent threat of grievous bodily harm you can defend yourself, no question. But, like, why just make gak up like you do, about the 120 pound thing? And claiming you can just shoot random stray dogs because you feel like it? I mean, does no one you know IRL call you out on this kind of stuff?

I believe it stems from laws regarding the protection of livestock. Feral dog packs can cause tons of damage to livestock, so if there are loose dogs on your property you can shoot them because of the threat they pose.

And even dogs with owners sometimes run around with a pack at night and come back during the day.

I do trust them

I have slept between two of them



do you trust every human is the real question


there should be a test to own a pet, and you should have to ACE that one to be able to breed yourself

I would, I owned a Rott./Mastiff mix years ago named Doc and he was the best dog I have ever owned. I still miss that dog.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Proper training, and more importantly socializing, is the key. While they are no more likely to be nasty than other breeds, once they go they're gone.

Isn't that the case with most dogs though? Once they get a taste for human blood they'll attack us.

No. They're not lions. That's not how it works with non-feral dogs.

Oh, OK then.

Love rotties, dobies, GSDs, met a lot of sweet pit bulls too. While you need to be careful with pits, in my experience it's most definitely nurture, not nature that makes a dog dangerous or violent. I've seen a few rare examples but those dogs are usually bred specifically for aggression.

Working animal control in Arizona really exposed me to the down side of what Frazzled calls the Gangsta Ego Extension though, saw a lot of fethed up animals and got charged by a pit on a chain twice. Thankfully I just had to step back there instead of kill or disable the animal but damn that was scary. That's a lot of angry animal with a serious set of teeth coming at you and it's most certainly not going to be giving you kisses and ask for belly rubs.

In a charge situation I heartily encourage any one to employ lethal force to protect themselves and others.

 sebster wrote:
Any dog has the potential to attack. Even dogs raised in the most loving homes, because dogs are just like people, and some just have more instinct to attack, and just might perceive an otherwise mundane situation entirely incorrectly.

I mean, I love dogs, I've had them all my life. But the dog I have right now, well for some reason something geared in his brain meant he just really hates human babies and very small kids. Seriously, just goes off his nut, growling and slobbering if he sees someone who's a couple of years old or young. First time we learned about this was when a friend of my sister brought her newborn around, and my dog went straight at him. Fortunately, he's a Cavalier King Charles and those things are tiny and lack working jaws, so I was able to grab him before he got to the baby, and he was unlikely to have done serious damage if I hadn't grabbed him in time.

And that's really the point. Any dog can do something stupid, and while raising well them can reduce that risk immensely, it cannot remove the risk entirely. So the question then becomes 'if it does happen, do I really want it to be with a dog that I can't overpower, and who's jaw can inflict life threatening injuries in a few seconds?'

Or, you know, just get a little dog. You also don't have to walk them anywhere near as long.

Rodney the Shanker hates boys, especially boys on bicycles and skateboards. He's actually only mildly anxious around teenagers. However, considering he was a stray as a puppy and has scars on his chest, we think its PTSD.
On the positive I too hate boys and skateboards. . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Mind you also, a 120lb animal running at you with teeth is a potentially lethal threat under the law.

Are you sure it's "the law"? Are you sure it's not just a thing you made up, right now, on the spot?

In Texas dogs are property. You can shoot a loose dog on sight, especially after a spate of attacks by Rottweilers and Pit Bulls occurred and people started shooting them. Further if I have a rottweiler charging me, I am in imminent fear for my person (this has been adjudicated).

Control your fething dog.

Be that as it may, still waiting for that law you cited previously, the one that explicitly indicated 120lbs (not 119 or less) were a lethal threat under the law. Maybe you can add the law that says you're allowed to shoot loose dogs on sight in Texas? Because, to be honest, I'm pretty sure you're making this up.

I DID find this section of Texas law, though:

3) Shooting “stray” Dogs and Cats (Penal Code 42.09 Animal Cruelty). Any person who shoots a non-livestock animal, which includes any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured, can be charged with a felony offense. Penal Code 42.092 of the State of Texas law states that a person must have the owner’s consent to kill the animal (exceptions to prosecution are provided in Section 42.092(e)(1)). It is clear that a “stray” dog or cat either has no owner or that the person who shoots the animal did not get the owner’s consent.

I mean, I understand that if you're at imminent threat of grievous bodily harm you can defend yourself, no question. But, like, why just make gak up like you do, about the 120 pound thing? And claiming you can just shoot random stray dogs because you feel like it? I mean, does no one you know IRL call you out on this kind of stuff?

Case law. Stray animals are considered a nuisance, akin to coyotes. Am I going to cite case law to you? No because I don't particularly give a gak about you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe it stems from laws regarding the protection of livestock. Feral dog packs can cause tons of damage to livestock, so if there are loose dogs on your property you can shoot them because of the threat they pose.

Exactly. They are considered a nuisance. Further, there were multiple incidents where dogs on the loose attacked humans, particularly children, and after that case law established they can be blasted, even in metro areas (especially in metro areas) if the lives of humans are threatened.

I said 120 lbs as I would consider that a threat of imminent grievous harm or death to me. That meets the standard for people, much less dogs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Love rotties, dobies, GSDs, met a lot of sweet pit bulls too. While you need to be careful with pits, in my experience it's most definitely nurture, not nature that makes a dog dangerous or violent. I've seen a few rare examples but those dogs are usually bred specifically for aggression.

Working animal control in Arizona really exposed me to the down side of what Frazzled calls the Gangsta Ego Extension though, saw a lot of fethed up animals and got charged by a pit on a chain twice. Thankfully I just had to step back there instead of kill or disable the animal but damn that was scary. That's a lot of angry animal with a serious set of teeth coming at you and it's most certainly not going to be giving you kisses and ask for belly rubs.

In a charge situation I heartily encourage any one to employ lethal force to protect themselves and others.

The only time I have drawn is when two pits came running at me, the wiener dogs, and the wife (this was before Rusty the Tank dog retired with us). A pit actually attacked said Rusty in Houston, when I was walking out the door with him. Which makes twice animals have attacked me and my animal when we were walking out our own door to go for a walk.
Here's how that went:
Hey Hi dog WO WO WO
Rusty goes from hey dude to DIE fether DIE in 1/3 of a second
FUR BALL
Pit bull runs away...
Wo what the hell was that???

A few years ago two rotts chased a cat into the spiky bushes in the front. Grandma Frazzled went out there with a six foot dowel and beat them silly. She was major badass even to the end.

If I trust the owner, then I trust the dog.

I got bit (warning snaps, not attacks) by a fair few dogs (at least 4. Of which 3 were brought on by myself annoying the animal and not realising) as a kid. Made me scared of them so I was nervous around them which made it worse.
So I really appreciated it when myself and an ex were walking down a country path into our local town and someone had let their boxer off the lead and given it no further thought. The dog tried to get my ex to run - doing the whole run at us, then swerve away thing. I firmly believe, if she'd been on her own she'd had been scared into running and then attacked.
As it was I stood in between them and dared it to do it again. It didn't actually want a fight, so it calmed down and backed off.
Then when I tried to tell the owner, she wouldn't believe us that her dog was behaving badly.
I definately agree that a good home is likely to make a good dog - but a scared person is also likely to do something stupid.
All dogs like chasing things.

Edit: And if I'd known what my ex would later go on to do, I'd've tied a chew toy to her arse and laughed...but that's a different story.

PredaKhaine wrote:
I got bit (warning snaps, not attacks) by a fair few dogs (at least 4. Of which 3 were brought on by myself annoying the animal and not realising) as a kid. Made me scared of them so I was nervous around them which made it worse.
So I really appreciated it when myself and an ex were walking down a country path into our local town and someone had let their boxer off the lead and given it no further thought. The dog tried to get my ex to run - doing the whole run at us, then swerve away thing. I firmly believe, if she'd been on her own she'd had been scared into running and then attacked.
As it was I stood in between them and dared it to do it again. It didn't actually want a fight, so it calmed down and backed off.
Then when I tried to tell the owner, she wouldn't believe us that her dog was behaving badly.
I definately agree that a good home is likely to make a good dog - but a scared person is also likely to do something stupid.
All dogs like chasing things.

Edit: And if I'd known what my ex would later go on to do, I'd've tied a chew toy to her arse and laughed...but that's a different story.

I hate when people leave their dogs off the leash. Thats when I inevitably have trouble.

Some breeds are clearly worse than others, like Jack Russells for example - appalling creatures. It's true that the owner can often be the problem; some people either don't care or can't accept that their animal is a problem. I would like to see new ownership laws that require the dog to be either on a leash, or muzzled when in public - no exceptions. While this won't help protect the postal service much it would be a good start.

 RossDas wrote:
Some breeds are clearly worse than others, like Jack Russells for example - appalling creatures. It's true that the owner can often be the problem; some people either don't care or can't accept that their animal is a problem. I would like to see new ownership laws that require the dog to be either on a leash, or muzzled when in public - no exceptions. While this won't help protect the postal service much it would be a good start.

In many areas in the US that is the case now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 RossDas wrote:
Some breeds are clearly worse than others, like Jack Russells for example - appalling creatures. It's true that the owner can often be the problem; some people either don't care or can't accept that their animal is a problem. I would like to see new ownership laws that require the dog to be either on a leash, or muzzled when in public - no exceptions. While this won't help protect the postal service much it would be a good start.

In many areas in the US that is the case now.

I wonder if that has resulted in a reduction in hospital cases treating dog attacks? Hopefully our government will do the same here, it could save plenty of people from a lifetime of disfigurement, or worse

Considering that I have a half inch long scar below my eye from where my own pet dog bit me in the face, no.
I really struggle with large dogs. Small dogs I can just about put up with, but I really really really don't like large dogs, even ones that I know would never bite me.

 Goliath wrote:
Considering that I have a half inch long scar below my eye from where my own pet dog bit me in the face, no.
I really struggle with large dogs. Small dogs I can just about put up with, but I really really really don't like large dogs, even ones that I know would never bite me.

I have a scar on the knee where a puppy sank a tooth while we were playing. They have needle teeth when they are young. I have a scar on the nose where my bird dog nipped me too.

PredaKhaine wrote:
I got bit (warning snaps, not attacks) by a fair few dogs (at least 4. Of which 3 were brought on by myself annoying the animal and not realising) as a kid. Made me scared of them so I was nervous around them which made it worse.
So I really appreciated it when myself and an ex were walking down a country path into our local town and someone had let their boxer off the lead and given it no further thought. The dog tried to get my ex to run - doing the whole run at us, then swerve away thing. I firmly believe, if she'd been on her own she'd had been scared into running and then attacked.
As it was I stood in between them and dared it to do it again. It didn't actually want a fight, so it calmed down and backed off.
Then when I tried to tell the owner, she wouldn't believe us that her dog was behaving badly.
I definately agree that a good home is likely to make a good dog - but a scared person is also likely to do something stupid.
All dogs like chasing things.

Edit: And if I'd known what my ex would later go on to do, I'd've tied a chew toy to her arse and laughed...but that's a different story.

I think if you owned a boxer you'd recognize that move pretty quickly.

Edited by Manchu

... Dogs that have bitten/attacked me for no reason .... poodle, corgi, and sausage (you know the one of toy story)
... Dogs that have been perfectly fine ... Pit bull, Doberman and Alsatian


...whats the difference? The owner. Dogs are pack animals, as the owner you must be the alpha and they must follow you. If you are in control and bring up the dog well, it will look to you. Rottweilers have a reputation because so many owners train them as attack/guard dogs or worse let the dog be in control.

 Seaward wrote:

I think if you owned a boxer you'd recognize that move pretty quickly.

She wasn't even watching. She'd walked off.

One of the worst experiences I've had. It's why my pets are budgies. They aren't going to be a problem unless one day I wake up and turn out to be made of birdseed.

PredaKhaine wrote:
She wasn't even watching. She'd walked off.

One of the worst experiences I've had. It's why my pets are budgies. They aren't going to be a problem unless one day I wake up and turn out to be made of birdseed.

I meant if you yourself owned boxers. Our boxer runs at us all the time, then runs off, then runs back at us, etc. She's playing, trying to get us to chase her.

Still not convinced.
By the time it was done, it'd stopped running about and was just stood there barking and blocking the path. It'd started just doing the jerk forwards, see if I can get you to run away move. That's when I got between them.
Might still have been playing, but either way, It shouldn't have been left to it's own devices. If either of us had run, and she was on the verge of it, it would've chased. Dogs get carried away when they get to chase - I've been bit that way before (admittedly, I was about 6 and that dog was definitely playing)
Stays with you though...

 sebster wrote:
Any dog can do something stupid, and while raising well them can reduce that risk immensely, it cannot remove the risk entirely. So the question then becomes 'if it does happen, do I really want it to be with a dog that I can't overpower, and who's jaw can inflict life threatening injuries in a few seconds?'

Seb basically sums up my position quite nicely here. Why take the risk of owning an animal that could quite easily kill me or a member of my family? It just seems so unnecessary. That's why I own this soft bugger:

As a pet, I would absolutely trust one. My neighbors had one when I was a kid and it was one of the sweetest and smartest dogs I've ever met. She would come over and hang around with me when I was waiting for the school bus.

Now if we're talking about trusting a rottweiler as an accountant, I would most definitely say no. There was a rottweiler working at a local bank who was in charge of my account, and he ended up cleaning the whole thing out and skipping town. Plus he cheated at cards when I invited him over to poker night. CURSE YOU REGINALD!!!! BAD DOG!