UKC

With apologies for restarting what I suspect is a standard UKC debate...


I'm wandering up a hill in Fife in the sunshine, minding my own business.

Some bloke is wandering down the way, on a parallel course to mine, about 30 yards away. He has a dog with him. A big red dog, probably weighs about the same as I do.

The dog sees me. The dog bounds over. Bloke keeps walking, taking no notice.

The dog gets to about 3 feet away from me and barks. Aggressively. I stop moving, and look at it. The dog barks a lot more, with even more aggression.

I decide to keep going. The dog goes mental, and gets even closer. I decide not to keep going. The dog barks at me a lot more while I look back at it and pick up a rock since no other self-defence weapon is to hand.

After about 3 minutes of standoff, for no obvious reason the dog runs off again.

The bloke it's with hasn't taken the slightest notice of any of this.

I shout at him, quite angrily, "Could you get your dog under control?"

He emits the usual dozy line "He wouldn't hurt a fly".

I retort "That's what they all say," and go on my way seething.

Comment #1: At the very least, this is atrocious manners on the part of the dog owner. His dog is menacing other people, and he's doing sod-all to control it.

Comment #2: But it's not just bad manners. It's irresponsible dog-ownership. If the dog did decide to "hurt a fly" there would be nothing he could do, from that distance, to prevent it.

Comment #3: It's also dangerous. This is how people get attacked by dogs. All dogs are said to be "quite friendly", until they actually go for someone.

Comment #4: It's not just dangerous to me, it's dangerous to the dog. If I had been the farmer I might have had a gun. If I had had a gun, the way it was behaving, I would have been right on the cusp of shooting it. Without a gun, my options are less limited. But I was getting ready to fight it if it did attack, and if I'd had to fight it, I would have been trying to kill it.

Comment #5: I am a thick-set scary-looking bloke. How would this incident have been for an 8 stone pixie-like woman?

Comment #6: All I wanted was a walk in the sunshine. Why, out of nowhere, do I suddenly have to put up with this potentially life-altering shit, just because some idiot doesn't know how to control his dog?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

It is horrific manners! You're being harassed by his dog and he does nothing. The dog may not hurt a fly but you don't know that. I suppose the only way they might end up understanding how people feel is if you were to go and bark in the owners face for a while and see how he likes it.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

its is crap but thats people for you!
Just keep going and ignore the dog

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Many of my relatives are dog owners. The believe it is their right to allow their dog to "run free and have a bit of fun. It wouldn't hurt anyone. It would be cruel to keep it on a lead!"
Most of them can't walk fast enough or far enough to give the dog the exercise it needs. They never pick up their dogs shit after it!
Unfortunately, around here, they are in the majority!
Maybe there should be someone around to enforce the rules. I believe, although I may be corrected, that on CROW land a dog must be on a lead of not more than 2m and be under control. This should apply to all public places. Maybe if the owners had to run a long way to give their dog some exercise they would be better for it.
It is time that all dogs were chipped (at the owners expense, with exemptions for guide dogs.)and registered. If a dog is sold or given away then that transfer must be done quickly. All dogs should have third party insurance,related to the chip. All this would cost about £150 max for the chip/regitrations and about £30 pa for the insurance.
Then the rules should be strictly enforced.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Does this happen all the time? Now and again, yes it happens all the time, sometimes.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Not all the time, but a lot more often than it should.

Was recently bitten by a cocker spaniel when riding slowly along a bridleway. Didnt get me badly, but I shouted for about 5minutes at the owner to get it under control before it bit me, and at no point until I dropped my bike and grabbed it by its collar did the owner make anyserious attemp to control it.

Apparently it was the colour of my jacket that set it off

Whilst there are many good considerate owners with well trained dogs out there, unfortunately I wouldnt say its a minority that doent understand the concept of not loving dogs

In reply to Tim Chappell:
That was poor behaviour by the owner. I normally aim a kick at aggressive dogs , but this can go awry if you're on your own with an aggressive dog and owner.
I understand your anger, but the same owner probably walks this way a lot. Look out for them, and give Fido some laxatives in a lump of liver. Tell the owner he may regret letting his dog run amock.

In reply to Skol:
Take a look at this:

http://www.ukandspain.com/dangerous-dogs/

"Each year, approximately 28,000 facial dog bites are reported in the UK, with just over 19,000 of them requiring serious plastic surgery."

For my own part, I find those numbers hard to believe. But even if you divide them by 50, they're bad enough.

Just for the record: I grew up with dogs, and I am a deeply pro-animal person in all sorts of ways. We don't have a dog (because we have a rabbit!) but when we visit other people's houses, and they have dogs, it is usually my face that, within about 40 seconds, the dog is licking. Any dog that bounds up to me with a friendly grin when I and it are out walking is going to get its ears massaged, no question.

But if a dog looks like it might attack me, that's a different matter, and I've seen enough bad stories to know that I need to take the threat seriously.

In reply to ow arm:



Not an option. It was trying to get behind me to attack my back as it was.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


how do you know it was trying to do that?

next time, try sitting down.

In reply to Dr.S at work:



Tell you what, the next time a dog menaces you, YOU sit down.

When your fingers are repaired enough to write again, you can drop me a line from hospital and let me know how it went.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

These dog threats are all too regular. Recently in the woods,my quiet amble with my dog was interrupted by 2 bounding, barking Labradors with a posse of about ten loud owners. What do you do when the owners are laughing and shouting the dogs back in a jocular fashion? The only option is to stand your ground and aim a kick. It's not a time for messing about. It's a serious threat to your health. You handled the threat well by all accounts. As you say, it's easier for bigger blokes to do.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

All very well saying that . The dog should have been under control in the first place. Dog owners have a habit of thinking the world loves their dog as much as they do . This is not the case always. Once bitten , twice shy .

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Good judge of character, dogs...

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

They certainly are, in general. Like I said above, most dogs absolutely love me.

In reply to Dr.S at work:



Well it's only February the 7th but that'll be pretty hard to beat for 'the most idiotic post on ukc 2014' award.
Bravo

In reply to Tim Chappell:

A man of your age should be using walking poles by now, the best way of keeping dogs away. Or whip your rucksack off, much easier to defend yourself with than trying to throw a rock.

If rocks are the only option make sure you have two. When the first one hits the dog you're gonna the second one to threaten the owner with.

In reply to Tim Chappell:



It happens to me a lot at work, I do sit down.

you will note I did not say to put your fingers out for the dog to chew on.

In reply to deacondeacon:

In precis:

TC This bloody great dog looked like it was going to attack me.
Dr S: It's your fault. You should have sat down.

...Yes, it's one to savour, isn't it?

In reply to deacondeacon:



Thanks, I do like a nice award - is it a plaque or some sort of novel sculpture?

In reply to winhill:



No, on this I think I defer to someone even older than myself. Clint is right. I should be carrying an AK47.

In reply to Dr.S at work:



Nope, it's an Akita. A hungry one. <Barbara Woodhouse voice> Dr S-- SIT!

In reply to Tim Chappell:





Thats a very interesting precis!

Since I generally respect your views I'd be interested how you infer that I think a dog barking/behaving aggresively towards you is your fault?

Sitting down often helps (crouching usually better infact as you still have freedom of movement) - you look smaller to the dog so it is less likely to perceive you as a threat.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Ah, lovely - I like those. If it was a yorkie I would have been a bit scared.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Get it all the time when running. Had a dog run up to me the other day then last minute dodge and run behind me. Next thing i know it clipped the back of my legs an i'm nearly on the floor. Suffice to say the owner got a piece of my mind.

Its usually the owners fault though, they don't seem to realise its their responsibility to keep it under control, they seem oblivious.

You did the correct thing. I'd have no hesitation in striking out at a dog if i felt it was going to bite me.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

>I'd be interested how you infer that I think a dog barking/behaving aggresively towards you is your fault?

No, fair cop. You didn't say that. I withdraw it. With apologies.

I'm intrigued by your webpage job-description. What are you, a lion tamer?

And fill us in on this sitting down business. What happens next when you do? And how do you know that (even if it does generally work to do this) you're not just exposing yourself to the risk of serious injury?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


It worked for Odysseus!

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Just bend and pick up a stone; most dogs recognise the gesture.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I did that. It kept barking.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
no problem


Veterinary anaesthetist


Sometimes the dog does not change its behaviour, sometimes it comes up and says hello. They usually calm down.

If that does not work then I move away from the dog, dont make eye contact, and unlike you I'm quite small so probably less of a perceived threat. I try to interact with owners in a positive way ignoring the dog. I'm quite softly spoken anyway, but I think a quiet calm voice helps.

If I do hold a hand out to a dog I dont know then I'm careful that it comes from the dogs eyeline or below, and ideally with a closed fist knuckles up.

Does bringing yourself down to a dogs eye level reduce the risk of injury? hard to answer - I'd say yes as it generally leads to the dog calming down. BUT with the genuinely aggresive dog, i.e. one that is actually attacking you, then it could lead to more severe injury.

Those dogs are really rare, but if you ever encounter one in the wrong circumstance you will realise it in pretty short order - I reckon anything over 20kg that properly goes for it has a fair chance of maiming or even killing a fit adult male.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Thanks, interesting.

I want to stress that I'm not some random dog-hater! I'm used to dogs, I've seen and known and liked plenty of them, they usually react well to me, and I don't generally get uptight about dogs checking me out with their noses or even barking a bit. But this one was very full-on.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

fair do's, reading your initial account I'd identify trying to stare the dog out as a bit of an error, you are engaging with the dog when you want to disengage.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I do remember some years ago now a woman who had a dog called Max who was...well....mental. She had absolutely no control over this dog, which she would let off its lead on the stadium where I worked. As soon as we heard the distant cry of "Max! Max!" we knew the slavering beast was not far away. It would make a bee line for anyone it saw and attack them, snarling fit to burst and getting in a nip if they tried to run for it. It tried to go for us gardeners and I remember one chap squaring up to it with a raised spade. "He won't hurt you", his "owner" called over the rabid growls and gnashing teeth. "too right" said the bloke, "and I won't bash his brains out neither!"
She manage to get Max's lead on him while the red mist distracted him and saved both from a nasty incident.
Curiously over the years she had a string of dogs, all mental and all called Max.
I believe the last one so named ate her.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Does this happen all the time? Do you mean threads on UKC claiming the poster was almost savaged by an out of control dog, the owner said 'he wouldn't hurt a fly' and containing the phrase 'I don't hate dogs but...'. Followed by numerous replies from the usual suspects all relating similar horror stories, calls for 'something must be done' and 'won't someone think of the children'.

Not all the time. They are usually spaced a few weeks apart to avoid being too obvious but enough to keep inciting fear on a regular basis.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Buy some doggy mace, there's one called bite back that's non-damaging to the dog.

The standard advice is kick it in the balls/punch it in the nose etc. etc. I say standard advice, it's standard advice in this country where dog attacks are rare, most people don't get the chance to have a fight with a big dog but if you do and you don't kill it in the first few seconds you're probably going to be in hospital having a nice new plastic face made for you.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Man up. I've never been bothered by a dog in my life. Even when I've been bit by one. Better things to worry about mate.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


When you're a couple of feet away from a loud / furious / aggressive / snarling / slavering machine with a mouth full sharp teeth and a set of jaws designed to do the most damage possible to anything that falls between them, the last thing I would want to do would be to "move my face closer to it and down to the same level as it"



I can fully see that your explanation makes sense, and your job gives it extra credence but I think in the situation I just wouldn't be able to...I'd either have to cry, soil myself or run away (or all three).

In reply to jimjimjim:

You don't think it's a massive issue that there are people out there letting their dogs run out of control?

I got bitten a couple of years back on the way to work whilst walking past someones gate. Dogs in the garden, gate wide open, both dogs came out, one grabbed my shin, left my with a nice scar and a ruined pair of pants.

I'm six foot four. That bite happened just below my knee

That walkway is about three minutes from a local primary school and it's one of two routes to get the the school. If that had been a kid walking past, it's pretty near neck / face height. there's a lot of damage waiting to happen.

In reply to jimjimjim:


Second most idiotic post on this thread. There's always a first time.

In reply to woolsack:


Yep, first we get just sit down and now we get man up - brilliant!!!!

E

In reply to ThunderCat:




This is exactly what I think of when I come across poorly trained/owned dogs. Big strapping lad vs unruly dog is one thing, but what it it's a 6 or 7 year old kid?

Some owners out there are just don't get it.

In reply to Enty:

Well in your case Enty, mtfu and peddle faster.

Is there a velominati rule pertaining to dog bites?

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I guess it comes under the umbrella of Rule 5.......

Good sprint training though, when I see a dog at the side of the road - always whack it down into the 11 just in case.....

E

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Couple of times in last year - one a farmer's collie twice nipped me on the leg and the farmer never even looked up at all the barking (he's one of those that does not like walkers passing, despite actually walking on a tarred road through his property). Second, the owner blamed me for using a head torch which upset his dog and when I shouted I would kick to defend myself if the dog was going to bite, came up to me and faced me up from two feet away and shouted aggressively he would hit punch me if I hit his dog.
Other than those most dog owners I've meet are very good if somewhat indifferent as most do not recognise that allowing their dog to jump up and slobber with dirty clawing feet is still not acceptable (even if your are in walking gear rather than smart clothes). I don't mind dogs overall but I know some would are terrified by dogs jumping up. Why some owners are oblivious to the effect on others is beyond my thinking.

In reply to Enty:

Isn't that the secondary reason for wearing padded shorts? Head down, ars* up, whippet with a mouthful of finest Assos padding?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

This seems to happen to me quite regularly. The last one that annoyed me was in Savernake Forest before Christmas. Three large dogs running towards me and the wife, owner trundling behind. They started jumping up at us. I'm not too bothered by dogs, but the wife is quite afraid of them. I shouted at the owner (still some distance away) if he could get his dogs under control, and he made a half-hearted attempt to call them back to no avail.

Eventually he got up to us and did a better job of getting them under control. He then turned and said those words: "they don't mean to hurt you." At this point I stopped him and pointed out that that is irrelevant, and not everyone loves dogs as much as he presumably does, and that some people are actively afraid of them. His response was that said people just need more exposure to dogs (presumably out-of-control dogs!). At this point I lost it, swore at him and pointed out that Savernake is private land and there are signs saying dogs should be on a lead (few incidents of sheep being attacked recently).

What really got me down was that he seemed like a decent guy, not an idiot; he just couldn't fathom how his three dogs could upset people.

There are people who have owned a dog and people who haven't, the responses on here show that quite clearly.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Is that because one group are logical and considerate and the other group are selfish, antisocial and completely un self-aware?

In reply to FreshSlate:


There are people who are owned by their dogs evidently

In reply to Mike Peacock:

When I was out running once, a couple of dogs once came across my path and got in my way, just after another one belonging to someone else had yapped at my ankles for a few yards. Moments later I scowled at the owner, a young mother out herself for a run with her buggy as well as the dogs, which must have been a nice thing for her to do. I didn't make her day and I didn't help mine.

Since then I have tried very hard not to be grumpy towards dog owners any more when I am out running unless I really want to make a point. There are just too many of them.

I try to restrict myself to a very occasional "This is not on. Please could you keep your dogs under control?" when the owners seem really not to care that their largish dog has bounded after me and started barking and snarling.

The only time I really lost it was a long time ago when a couple were out on the coast path with their large dog, that they had let go ahead of them. It met my daughter, then four years old and ahead of me, in an open space. It started snarling. I was scared, she was terrified. When I tried the "This is not on.." line, the couple just laughed at me and said that the coast path was for everyone...

Mostly, I smile, the dog owners smile, and all is fine. If the dog owners have let their dogs go on ahead, I presume when I am running towards it that it is because they are confident that the dogs won't bother me, and almost always that is the case. When this turns out not to be true, I don't mind politely telling them what I think.

In reply to mbh:

I do agree, most are fine, and I don't wish all dogs to be on leads or anything like that. Normally I do try to be polite, and even with the above mentioned incident I started off with the aim of being calm and reasonable, then got annoyed when he couldn't see my point of view. And like you say, me getting angry then somewhat ruined my day.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Wouldn't that just look like a book?

In reply to jimjimjim:


You are an arse. Like all dogs that chase after people you should, along with their owners, be shot.

In reply to ThunderCat:

>
>I think in the situation I just wouldn't be able to...


You correctly identify my problem in that situation with Dr S's no doubt good advice. I have read enough about aggression cues in animals to know that, as Dr S says, looking them in the eye is not a good idea. But it's hard to see what else to do. I need to know what it's doing next. I need to know whether it's going to back down. I need to know whether it's about to jump me. Admiring the daisies in this situation just isn't a serious option.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

If you don't want to look something in the eye, look just to the side and pay attention to your peripheral vision.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I started the thread. I've owned a dog. I've known dogs all my life. I'd go so far as to say I love dogs. Which "side" am I on, according to you?

In reply to jimjimjim:



This afternoon I went up a hill in a blizzard and climbed a new grade V ice route. Man enough for you?

In reply to johncook:

Brilliant post... apart from you dont know if Tim was on a path or the status of the land.


Try walking fast enough to keep a collie fit... I'm an international runner and she'd laugh if dared run her on the lead.

Its awful behaviour in Tims case. But you only notice badly behaved dogs.

The guy must know and should have called the dog off..

Re kicking out at the dog. Thats bad advice. Best to stay calm and do as Tim did. You may want to kick the dog but it's more likely will inflame the situation.

It pisses me off because it makes owning a dog harder. I get a few issues with dogs and will always give the owner a piece of my mind.

Fly's not aggressive, but she is a collie and they do have a hugging mentality and she jumps up. So I always call her away and if people say they want to see her I'll let them know what she'll do. Almost always they say fine and love a big Fly hug. But she thinks everyone loves her so will try to approach anyone for a hug so although she's almost never on the lead (she rarely goes more than 5 yards from me as she's needy and
pathetic), I don't let her approach people.

My parents have another rescue dog who is fine 95% of the time but occassionally gets scared and barks quite nastily, she's never gone for anyone but it can scare people, its basically any fat man with a bald head, it must have been the guy who knocked her around. But you always apologise and tell her off.

Must say find the 19,000 bites needing serious PS to be very questionable.

But Look at David Bests idiotic comment.. you only spot bad owners. Good owners go to quiet areas.. avoid people.. keep their dogs under control. My parents walk their 3 (they have mine whilst I'm away) either early or late to avoid people or up in a forest in a remote part of scotland where you never see anyone.. ones an ex-racing greyhound so if you want to let her run you have to make sure there is nothing small and fury insight, so a city park is a recipe for disaster.

In reply to IainRUK:
Jings! not one link on this thread, soon fix that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6227497.stm

Not sure I spotted sitting down though.

In reply to Jim C:




I like this one:

""Hope there is someone with a breaking stick to introduce between the jaws."Anything will do that can be slid between the teeth at the side, but given the strength of the jaw and the leverage, it would have to be a very powerful bit of stick or it will just break."

Made me smile.

E

In reply to Jim C:

I refrained from posting the ones linking dog bites with mental disability.

In reply to Enty:

This reply amused me too:

"Yes. Next time I get attacked by a rampant dog, I am going to stand still and put my hands in my pockets. That sounds plausible."

In reply to Tim Chappell:

A few years ago a chap got attacked by a dog on the canal toe-path, so he kicked it but it kept going for him, so he kicked it away again, then the owner started screaming at him, so he killed her.

He went to prison. Naughty naughty!

In reply to The thread

You do need to differentiate between advice about how to avoid an attack, and what to do when an attack actually occurs.

Tim was not actually attacked, he made some good choices and some less good choices about how to interact with a poorly trained and I'll controlled dog.

Dog attacks are on the up in the UK, and it's estimated that it costs the NHS 10 million pounds a year to treat them.

Very few dog attacks are down to psychopathic dogs. Most are down to a combination of interactions with people who do not know how to interact with dogs safely - often kids, and dogs that have been poorly trained or are being poorly controlled - you really can 'blame the parents' for dog behaviour in most cases.

Putting a child in a room with a big fluffy toy that happens to have sharp teeth and an instinct to use them when it's ears are pulled, without adequate adult supervision is an all to common story.

There are a few initiatives trying to address this ( blue dog campaign for one) but I think with declining dog ownership, and especially the tendency for dog owners to treat their dogs as pseudo children, it will be very hard to address.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

So you actually seem to be agreeing with the majority, that there are too many moronic owners who should never be allowed to keep a dog (or any other animal, come to that!)
Your advice on how to avoid an attack is good (I have used the techniques effectively, but just occasionally they have not worked,) but does not allow for the fact that many dogs have the genetic coding to want to be alpha. At the first sign of any fear or distress they will try to take over. People should not be having to make the decision as to whether a dog just wants to play or is really going to do some damage, when they are in a public place! The onus should be on the dog owner to keep the dog on a short (2m) lead and under control when in a public place.

In reply to johncook:

no.. thats a human view point. The alpha dog idea is lazy and out dated.

And no, a dog owner is perfectly fine to have the dog bounding free in many areas.

Very very few dogs will want to upset what they have. Why would an animal attack something bigger unless threatened?

There are issues with dogs in the UK, but as they are they are against the law.. so the lazy approach.. i.e. yours is tighten laws to restrict good owners even further.. yet affect the bad owners f*ck all..

Why should people train a dog if it will be on the lead all the time.. it makes it more dangerous. The laws, as they stand are fine, compliance is the issue.

In reply to johncook:


I'd not characterise it in that way, I' don't think that sort of inflammatory language helps.

I think that 'fault' for animal/human conflict is down to failings on the part of all three parties involved. Dogs and other animals are to a certain extent free agents, they exist in large numbers and people need to know how to interact with them. I'm not a massive proponent of animal rights, but we should at least consider what the dog is thinking (" he's picked up something, great he is going to throw it - he really wants to interact!")

Dogs have lived with us for a long time, and are very good at reading humans, but it's still an alien set of behavioural cues for them and us. Once we lose our ability to communicate effectively then conflict is more likely to arise - the arguments/frequent anger on UKC evidenced in this thread and many others illustrate this well.

In reply to Dr.S at work:



I find this very interesting and would like to know more.
What is the underlying cause of the rise?
For instance in the past (and I am talking about the 1960's - 1980's) I found dog attacks in the street and on country lanes to be very common as people would let their dogs roam free and it was a normal thing to see packs of dogs roaming the streets. Then the dangerous dogs act came in and it all died down. Dogs were not seen roaming the streets and farm dogs were much more likely to be chained and not run out into the road to confront you. I would surmise therefore that these days a dog attack in public is more likely to occur where the owner is present or in the home where it is unsupervised. Does this mean a rise in dog ownership? or a lack of people trained to train a dog? Would a return to the old dog licence have any effect?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Not to diminish what was plainly an upsetting experience but if it was as big and aggressive as you describe and actually trying to attack you it would have done so, you'd be bitten and cross, not just cross.

The owner sounds like an idiot, but then again, if someone were shouting angrily at me and my dog while holding a rock I'd be more inclined to be dismissive and leave quickly than to offer the apology the situation deserved.

As to whether it happens all the time, probably but it's never happened to me.

jk

In reply to jkarran:
I don't intend to spend all day on here defending my behaviour in a totally unexpected crisis to people who weren't there. But very quickly:

a) The owner was too far away to see whether I was holding a rock
b) In any case the owner wasn't looking
c) I was completely silent until the dog backed off
d) I don't think a dog's decision-making processes are anything like as clear-cut as you seem to. And even if they are, what counts for my decision-making is what I think the dog is going to do next. I couldn't make any prediction. And it looked like there could be a lot riding on that prediction.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

The thing to remember is dogs very very rarely attack.. it doesnt help much but normally, like with most animal attacks, the person gets hurt when they dry to attack it.. snakes etc..

Mid run it pisses me off to break stride but its always better to stop and walk away. I get pissed off when people see me running and don't call their dog off the path.. it puts me and their dog in an bad position.. many dogs do instinctively chase things that move.

Saying that I always acknowledge when someone does call their dog over.. like with a dog reward good behaviour..

In reply to Dr.S at work:


So that is inflammatory language...


But victim blaming isn't?

Of course there is a huge range of cases where the innocent victim simply has no chance to interact with the dog before being attacked, so this is a nonsense claim, driven by, well, that would be the interesting bit.


And yet they attack when it isn't in their best interest, so 'very good' might be a bit of a nonsense claim too.

I think, given the link to the article with 2 vets in it and your comments here, it's safe to say that vets/ assistants are 100% wrong in their perception of dog attacks, earning their living from their relationships with dogs and their owners rather than fighting off errant dogs and their owners.

This commercial pressure is part of what contributes to the problem.

I nearly got into a fight with a dog owner once on the grounds that he had spent £1,000s on vet fees and cos his dog was now scared I owed him the money he'd spent.

It was only when I accepted his kind offer to go toe to toe that he backed off and shut up.

Dogs are expensive to buy and expensive to keep and people invest too much emotional energy in them to be happy to see them disrespected by others.

In reply to winhill: some people..

Bet going toe to toe with you is terrifying.... jesus..

In reply to IainRUK:



Worked out quite well actually, he lives near me and comes past with his dog on a regular basis, now he tries to make out we're BFFs.

But then how would you know?

Still at least you've stopped poluting the doggy threads with your Dr Dolittle impressions like you used to, remember when you claimed your dogs were always off the lead because you could speak doggy to them and had them under absolute control?

At least you seemed to be enjoying things a bit more then, not as lonely and miserable as you seem now.

In reply to winhill:

I'm not blaming victims, I'm trying to explain what contributes to dogs biting people most of the time.

As it happens I'm not much of a dog person, but I do have the dubious pleasure of working with them in what for them are stressful circumstances, and I often do things to them which are scary. I get bitten from time to time, and try quite hard to avoid this. Part of that is trying to work out how my actions may have pushed the dog into biting me ( or worse another staff member).

As far as my and other vets apparent bias against your view - maybe it's based on evidence and experience rather than filthy lucre?

In reply to winhill:

yeah I said that.. little angry man.. I bet its well scarey..

come on another quality dig.. maybe get out and do some exercise you wouldnt be such a little angry man..

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Ignore him..

Certainly some people have more of an issue with dogs than most, but its a bit of a chicken and egg situation.. they are more likely to act aggressively.. so more likely to have further issues.

Winhill is the worlds angriest little man, dogs detect fear, unpredictability.. plus the mans an arse and the dogs probably realise that.. good judge of characters..

In reply to IainRUK:


Someone's already tried that on Tim, it's ll part of the fiction around the little people, sorry dogs.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Not being sufficiently passive is rarely an explanation. Blue Dog, or vets on a mission, claim that 86% of attacks on children are provoked by the children, studies in the US say 40%. So either UK toddlers are far more provocative towards dogs of the measure of provocation is somewhat different.


A vet is in a particular situation, where the dog's life is valued and the customer's money also valued.

If you worked in a restaurant with chow on the menu and keep a hammer handy so you could cave in the skull of the dog you were slaughtering if it bit you, you'd perhaps be less sensitive to the needs of the dog.

Similarly you'll see dog owners making a much more serious approach to control during lambing season, perception changes.

Dogs bite people because they're not under control, not because the victims didn't sit down.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Pepper spray. Dog and owner.

In reply to winhill:


I've always wondered whether owners might get the message if you ran up to them, looking furious, waving your fists around, and repeatedly shouting in their face "I'm going to kill you!". Then suddenly turn all meek and say "see: that's what it's like when your dog runs up barking and snarling; I'm only playing, and wouldn't hurt a fly"...

In reply to winhill:


There maybe marked differences from country to country - but both your stats say that children's actions are important in the causation of dog bites.


I killed 15,000 animals in my first year in practice, vets are not doctors, we kill our patients all of the time in order to protect their welfare or to satisfy the needs of society - just because you are sensitive to the needs of the dog does not mean that you would not cave its skull in ( or something nicer ) in the right circumstances.



But once a dog is out of control, what's the best way to avoid getting bitten? When I meet an aggressive drunk, I can behave in one way that gets me a good beating, or another that results in me going home unscathed - I did not make the person drunk, but I'd like to know how to avoid getting a beating.

In reply to Enty:





It made me think that this is a product that could perhaps be manufactured that ( responsible) dog owners would carry in case their dog attacks someone.

Some kind of high density nylon rod perhaps that could double as a throwing stick for games the rest of the time. ( although not a lot of good for my daughter's dogs ( Bichons) who don't fetch, but they are tiny so you could easily pull their mouth open)

Just a thought.

In reply to Jim C:
Really? Responsible dog owners should carry a baton at all times just in case their dog attacks someone?

Jesus wept. Most dogs do not attack people. Most owners are responsible. I concede that some dogs are on the scale from problematic to dangerous, but this anti-dog bandwagon bullshit is ridiculous and it shames us as a nation.

In reply to Tall Clare:



Did I say it would be compulsory , just a precaution for those that wanted to carry one.

But think of it like this, you are walking your dog and it is attacked by another dog, or you are a witness to a dog attacking someone, and your dogs specially designed 'throwing stick ' is to hand and you are able to introduce it into the dogs jaws and save the day.

It is true that I am very nervous of big dogs , especially around kids.
When mine were young there were just normal dogs around, few of these newly popular and powerful breeds.

Now that I have my granddaughter , I will be very nervous taking her to our local park where there are big dogs running off the lead, so rather than stay away because of the dogs, I for one will be carrying a stick , as suggested by the article, when I have my granddaughter with me ( and I am not even in charge of a dog) makes sense to me, maybe not to you, but it is only a suggestion, not a law.

In reply to Jim C:

It's quite common in some countries to carry a stick and some stones as you suggest in areas where there are dogs.

In reply to Jim C:
I think you need to see a dog attack. Your plastic stick will be no use. Better of being proactive.

In reply to MG:

I worked in portugal.. running in the countryside was terrifying with packs of wild dogs. Seriously scary to be out sometimes.

In reply to Tim Chappell:






Hard to believe? Why?

For every person in the UK that would be happy to kick a dangerous dog until was pulp there are an thousand who would be perfectly happy to cover up a dog attack and tell you that the poor little doggy didn't really mean it.

In reply to Tall Clare:


Crikey!

I would argue that this is part of the problem, and it is this which causes the aggro dog lovers dish out to defend their dogs and symptomatic of the arrogance that gets them into bother in the first plaace.

The UK is probably the worst country in the world for cosseting and over sentimentalising dogs, pets and animals. Japan may be worse for dogs but probably loses overall.

Look at the UK reaction to the danish giraffe, slaughtered and filleted in front of an eager crowd of children. Or the royal princes hunting wild boar in Spain, front page news here, in Germany they hunt 500,000 boar annually. Holland potentially matches the UK, mainly because so many of their pets are urban based.

In the US households are 175% MORE likely to own a dog than the UK but 20-30 times LESS likely to insure it for vet's bills. I guess they could all be saving to pay the bills but I expect it's more like the UK used to be where owners just kill the dog and get another or move on.

Pet Insurance in the UK has ballooned in the last 15 years before then many animals were just killed rather than pay huge bills (google the BBC story about the lady paying £4,500 to fix her minature dachshund's (Rufus) back.

At the same time, there is a distinct change in the way pets are viewed within the family with the tendency to humanise them and treat them as another child or member of the family. This is having a major impact on what and how much consumers are prepared to spend on their pets. Research by MINTEL , questioning around 1,000 pet owners finds three quarters (74%) of owners treating their pets as one of the family. Almost 20% of consumers feel guilty about leaving their pets at home, while more than one in eight (12%) pet lovers claim to take their pets nearly everywhere. What is more, 7% of owners feel restricted by their holiday choice and a similar number feel they don’t get to spend enough time with their pet. In recent years there has been a massive increase in the UK of people searching for dog friendly cottages, dog friendly holidays and dog friendly accommodation such as these pet friendly cottages in South Wales. Interestingly, there has been a slight increase in the number of people owning two cats, suggesting that consumers are now also more sensitive to providing a companion for their feline. The MINTEL report concludes that like many full time working parents, pet owners today are now lavishing more money on their pets simply to try and relieve their guilt for not spending enough time with them.
http://www.walkmydog.co.uk/franchise/uk-pet-care-market/

Sainsbury's Insurance reckons the lifetime cost of a dog/cat is going to be £17,000.

What's changed isn't innocent third parties attitudes to dogs (the 'haters'), it is the owner's attitudes and perceptions.

In reply to IainRUK:

Good point Iain , I have a rather sturdy hardwood baton( that I keep handy upstairs)
that would be better.

It has been pointed out to me that boy dogs don't like being whacked between the back legs, and for either sex , if all else fails at the tooth end............

( they don't like it up 'em captain )

In reply to winhill:

worlds angriest man strikes again...

How would you spot those like Clare who have dogs that are trained.. that don't run wild.. that don't bite.. that aren't aggressive..

You really are the grumpiest poster on UKC..

In reply to Jim C:

Probably.. you grab that and Fly would play fetch all day..

In reply to winhill:


Sainsbury's Insurance reckons the lifetime cost of a dog/cat is going to be £17,000.

Wow!
Is that the life of a dog, or a lifetime of dog ownership ?
( taking ave mutt lifespan as 8-12 years)

"The joy of dog ownership is always tempered by one thing -- our beloved pets don't live as long as we do.
But finding dogs with the longest life expectancy isn't as easy as it sounds

The rare Mexican breed, the Xoloitzcuintle, has a life span of 15 to 20 years, for example, while the Irish Wolfhound has an estimated 6- to 8-year life expectancy.

There is one concrete piece of advice experts can give people looking for a dog breed with a long life span: think small.Size Matters

Nearly 40% of small breed dogs live longer than 10 years, but only 13% of giant breed dogs live that long. The average 50-pound dog will live 10 to 12 years. But giant breeds such as great Danes or deerhounds are elderly at 6 to 8 years."

In reply to winhill:


That is just bull shit..

The average dog lives 12 years, probably less. 15-16 is the max for the longer lived breeds. Pedigrees cost a huge amount more plus more bills due to inbreeding.

But £20 a week? 20 kilo's of food is £10-20.

You don't need a lead..

A bed = tesco duvet..

Re bills.. yeah I paid 5000 for a dogs op. Is that a bad thing. Over a lifetime she's still not cost me 17,000.

Not 1uite sure the point of your general rant though. I think you've done a winhill.. where you shake with rage and bang on the key pad... losing your thread of argument...

Why is thinking about your dog when choosing a holiday not a good thing? Surely thats exactly what you want? and what you argue is arrogant not to.. i.e. thinking of others.. quiet areas.. no sheep.. no main roads.. no nesting birds..

In reply to Jim C:

thats not true either.. think mongrel.. big dogs can have a good lifespan..

There is a general trend of size and lifespan but the main thing is avoid a breed.

But your average sized dog, cattle dogs, sheep dogs will live as long as most breeds. Few breeds will have an average life expectancy over 14 years.

We've had 3 mongrels.. 16 (25 kilo dog), 16 (16 kilo) and now 15 (15 kilo) and still running hours a day. Plus mongrel sheep dog thing who is 10 and is still running with me for hours a day.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Generally the side who haven't owned dogs write the indignant, daily mail esque general condemnation of an entire group.

Dog owners may disagree with the owner in your O.P, but are more measured in their response. It wasn't my intention to single anyone in particular out, certainly not yourself, but if I must: Winhill for example has some bizarre anti-dog agenda. There are a few tells in your post that show that you haven't owned a dog in a while and you probably haven't had to sort out a dog fight. I mean, it's a pretty long post for a dog barking at you. However, you did the right thing in stopping and not attempting to run or anything. The guy you described sounds a bit thick, people can be too casual and not recognise that their dog is bothering someone else. The fact that you are a scary looking bloke might have contributed to this, but he's probably just a div.

Of course with the owner being a div, and a unknown dog's aggression I think your response is fairly proportionate.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I have never owned a dog, and cannot comment on the whole group of dog owners. All I can comment on, really, is the way in which dogs affect one aspect of my use of the outdoors, which is running, which I do a lot, mainly in and out of the town in which I live, along trails frequented by dog owners and their dogs, who use it for the reason that I and many others do, including cyclists and horse riders.

Dogs are the single most bothersome thing I have to contend with. They get in the way, they pose a threat, and a few of them actually do bark and snarl and snap. The dog owners and lovers on here may protest, and claim that they or their dog would not do this or that, but the number of dogs is such that the overall effect of their massive presence in so many places to so many people is just as I experience it.

In reply to Dr.S at work:



WTF?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26131934

In reply to Sharp:



Shame that.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Terrible news. I don't think the breed of dog will come as any surprise unfortunately.

In reply to another_mark:



It's one every 10 minutes, so I guess he was working at Solihull Animal Belsen or perhaps it was F+M?

In reply to FreshSlate:


Unfortunately both your psychic powers and your rational capabilities have let you down, as I too have owned dogs and cats.

But it's all a bit medieval, Ian Paisley, isn't it?

Love my God or you're the AntiChrist, Love my Dog or you're the AntiDog.

- What also floats in water?
- A duck!
- Exactly.
- So, logically--
- If she weighs the same as a duck...
- she's made of wood.
- And therefore?
- A witch!

The commoditisation and humanisation of dogs means that owners come to think that people who are critical of errant owners are therefore anti-dog.

But then people who make that sort of dubious emotional attachment aren't necessarily going to know how to react rationally anyway.

Otherwise, America where dog ownership is nearly double that of the UK, yet doggie insurance 20-30 times less (which, in most cases results in dogs being put down earlier in their lives due to cost) would be the AntiDog. How does that work?

It's not just dog owners.

For example, covering a lop rabbit for life with insurer Pet Plan would cost £9.76 a month. This includes vets’ fee cover of up to £2,000, £250 for emergency boarding and complementary therapies such as acupuncture.

If your rabbit lived eight years, you would have forked out a total of £936.96 and might have not made any claims.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Bad dog == bad owner.

There is no situation in which a dog should ever be making another person uncomfortable (unless they have a phobia of dogs).

I love dogs, and had dogs as a kid, but also would support dog licensing. This would presumably also make it easier to complain about a badly behaved owner with dog; possibly you could take a photo, look at a set of local dogs, and make a complaint. People with too many complaints would have more difficulty getting a licence.

Whether a dog is on or off a lead is also irrelevant; what matters is whether the dog is in control. If the dog is on the end of the lead, yapping and snapping at people's ankles, not in control. If the dog is off the lead, but always in sight, walking to heel and returning immediately when called, then there is no problem (sadly my childhood dogs were not quite so well-behaved so stayed on the lead mostly!).

In reply to Tall Clare:



I think this is part of the problem Clare. What non dog owners and dogowners consider as being responsible. I've probably known and climbed with 20 dog owners over the years and none of them have been what I would consider responsible.

E

In reply to Enty:

But in fairness you also believe that dogs shouldn't be allowed to poo anywhere except in their own gardens - reasonable works both ways!

In reply to winhill:

Odd analogy - I pay for car insurance yet have never claimed.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

A swift punch to the dog owners snozzla should sort this debate out. Nothing to hard but enough to water his eyes. he will think twice before crossing your path again. Touche!

In reply to Tall Clare:

Well, look at it this way: when I walk in parks and other popular dog-walking locations, I'm seriously considering carrying a walking pole just in case a dog attacks me. But I don't even have a dog. Why should I be the one who has to take this step? Why not the dog-owners?




Agreed. But "most" is not enough. The fact that MOST don't attack is scant consolation to those who are attacked.




Shames us as a nation? Really? Shames us more than, say, the annual UK death-rate from dog attacks?

In reply to Tall Clare:


It's not an analogy.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

One thing it is doing is teaching kids to be scared of animals, which is unhelpful - as an example, I overheard a little girl pointing at my dog (calm, on a lead, on the other side of the road, many children like stroking her velvety ears) and saying 'Scary dog, mummy! Lift me up!' Thankfully her mum told her not to be so silly.

In the case of your OP, our dog does like bounding round the countryside but we're training her to sit when anyone walks past, whether that's a runner, a walker, whatever.

I do think some f*cktards own dogs, but I also think some people have children who really shouldn't, etc.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Yes. It happens all the time. Largely because a significant proportion of dogowners are irresponsible see-you-next-Tuesdays.

To be fair, this is of course also true of the population at large.

jcm

In reply to winhill:

Sorry, don't know what came over me - but it *is* an odd, and irrelevant, comment.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>



*That* is the issue we need to tackle! Everything else follows on from it. UKC is smattered with a fair few of them.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Nothing there I disagree with. It's useful for kids to know, though, that there are times when being scared of a dog (or at least having a healthy respect for it) is an extremely good idea. I've seen toddlers pulling a rottweiler's ears while their family was having a pub lunch. Both the rotty's owner and the toddlers' parents should have made sure that never had a chance of happening.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Rotties are generally pretty soft dogs - I'd be more wary of overbred labradors, to be honest. That's a situation where the kids shouldn't be antagonising the dog, in my opinion - from what you've said about the situation in those sentences, it's hard to perceive it in any other way. After all, the dog isn't wandering over to the kids and saying 'pull my ears, go on'. I think some educating kids that the world isn't entirely safe for their precious little fingers isn't a bad thing either - preferably *before* any serious harm comes to them and their parents then look round for someone to blame.

What we seem to be teaching kids is to be wary of *all* dogs.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

It's a numbers thing. One bad dog in ten won't upset many people if there are only ten dogs. If there are ten million of them then one bad dog in a thousand means that I am quite likely to get snarled at least once a year if I go out often enough. That then conditions where I choose to go and when. It's a pain in the bum.

Who has not heard the dread sound of feet scampering towards you as you pass a driveway, or, worse, a farm entrance?

In reply to Tall Clare:
But a little wariness about *all* dogs is, surely, a good idea. Any dog, even a little one, has nutcracker jaws and a mouthful of sharp teeth. Also, there's the dog's feelings to consider. Children can be loud, aggressive, and completely inconsiderate towards animals. When they pulled its ears, that rotty was in pain!

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Aren't you getting them confused with squirrels?

In reply to Clauso:

That's another thread. The time I was out for a walk, and this bloody great squirrel blocked my path, cracked its knuckles, flexed its muscles, pushed me in the chest, and said "I'm gonna f*ckin DO you, Chappell"... someone should do something!

In reply to Tim Chappell:

My mistake, you were quite correct after all:

http://tinyurl.com/ndwk2ms

In reply to winhill:

But what is strange about the US system is that in a society where medical insurance is commonplace, insurance for animals is quite rare.
Whilst at the same time Veterinary medicine for pets is far more 'advanced' in the US than anywhere else in the world, and people I know who have worked there find the level of anthropomorphism on display to be a bit on the nauseating side at times.

As far as insurance more generally - its a gamble for pets same as houses, travel etc. If you wish to buy an animal, be aware of what some things cost, and be prepared to make healthcare decisions based on economic as well as welfare grounds.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

My dad's wife was a person who ended up paying something like £5k to sort out a slipped disc in a miniature dachshund - yes, Winhill, there is more than one person that daft. That sort of thing is why I insure my pets.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I find that odd here too, and it may account for why there is a clash of views between those who have dogs and those who don't.

Those who do (generalising here) see them as part of the family, forgive their misdemeanours and seem blind to the fact that their teeth didn't evolve to eat grass. Those who don't find it quite odd that one species of animal is so doted upon while others get sent to the abattoir in industrial quantities.

In some peoples' lives, dogs (and horses) seem to occupy the place that children do in others'. There may be meaning in that. I don't know what it is, but it is odd (this has happened to me) when you meet a dog owning friend, out with friends of theirs that you don't know, and you get introduced to their dogs and not to them.

In reply to winhill:

15000/year. An average of 41 animals a day! That's just ridiculous.

To the OP

Much as I lke dogs this does annoy me too. But it's not likely to change anytime soon and it's a good reason to bring sticks out with you. I always think of the phrase "a dog is only 4 meals away from a wolf."

But sure that can apply to people too.

In reply to tistimetogo:


With the benefit of hindsight, some of it was. As Winhill suggests, FMD.
That was over a 3 month period roughly, pulling 16-18 hour days at the start, and working with a very efficient team of folk.

In reply to mbh:

>

Yes, a lot of our attitudes to and actions towards animals are bizarely different from species to species. most interesting - of course as a species we do that internally as well, so I guess its no surprise that we do it to other species.

In reply to Tall Clare:


hey you - I think I once said that stick and flick should be banned - and it should! Little Ent loves wandering off the path with her nature book. There's some approaches to crags where she can't do that now

E

In reply to Enty:

Fair comment. I do think it's discretionary near footpaths, i.e. anyone with any sense would pick it up if people are going to be wandering around, but in the middle of woods/farmland where it's well off the beaten track...

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Last January, my wife and daughter's cat went missing for 48h and came back with a slashed tendon in it's lower leg.
My mate who has more cats and dogs than you can shake a dog shitty stick at reckoned I wouldn't get much change from 500€ getting it fixed.
Anyway i was just about to take it on the 2h drive to Marseille airport to it's new home when Mrs. Ent got a quote from the vet of 120€ for the op - result. Happy wife and kid and happy cat

E

In reply to Tall Clare:
My thoughts on dog shit are that if a human, a machine, or any sort of industrial process produced something similar there would be more health and safety legislation and rules against the stuff that it would be instantly banned and people involved in any process that produced it and left it lying around would be looking at prison - like toxic waste - however it comes from dogs so no one seems to give a toss about it......

E

In reply to Enty:

The more baffling bit is that unless a council is particularly organised, I understand that the bags full of poo just go in normal landfill. I read a while back that the optimal treatment is to use flushable bags, bring it home and flush it away through a system that's designed for the purpose, i.e. the toilet.

In reply to Tall Clare:

we live 100m from a primary school. the walk down to it with our 4 year old is a cavalcade of dog shit, 6 separate ones yesterday. why would even the most irresponsible of dog owners think it was ok to leave their animals faeces strewn around outside a school full of under 10s?

and i'm guessing that the sort of moron that is happy to do that is probably the same sort of moron that doesnt bother to get their dog wormed, meaning that aside from being revolting the street is a health hazard

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Toxocariasis/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

have them destroyed. the owners that is, not the dogs.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

That's utterly bogging. It's not just about kids, though, it's older people, anyone really. Poo on pavements is really easy to pick up.

In reply to winhill:


That doesn't actually mean anything at all. Black men can be racist towards other black men. People can also change their minds. I think it's your rational capabilities that are letting you down.


Ah you're critical of errant owners, and owners who walk and feed their dogs with some occasionally paying pet fees...


What is rational?


I am not saying that Americans are anti dog, there's a monetary value to a dog that one has either arranged to meet or hasn't, can afford to pay or can't, there are differing attitudes and practices at vets and different cultures and groups that own pets. Americans being less likely to get pet insurance simply means they are less likely to get pet insurance.

I think your assessment 'Britain 'loves' dogs more than America' is bizarre, and I can't for the life of me see a point.



Yes, if you don't claim on insurance you lose money, brilliant deduction there. Better crash my car so I'm not wasting money.

People have a choice, you don't need to buy insurace and I'm sure pet insurance exists elsewhere in the world, so what?

In reply to Tall Clare:

yes.



its also a disaster area for traffic, as there is a coop with no car park, and at school drop off and pick up times it turns into absolute mayhem, gridlocked, cars strewn on pavements and in double yellow lines, raised voices...

sad to see how selfish and thoughtless people can be, considering contacting the council about it but dont really have the time and energy to set up the sort of campaign it would need to get anything done, so its just a case of mind where you tread...

cheers
gregor

In reply to Tall Clare:


Yes, it's insane and it is a very recent social phenomena and it is why I mentioned that I got threatened by the sort of jerk who thinks the rest of us should treat their dogs according to how much money they've spent on them.

No coincidence Iain says he's spent thousands too and he's off his rocker on dogs (I know he has other issues but I think he demonstrates the aggression it generates).

You again want thousands spent on your pet if it needs it (if you do the via insurance or not) and add to the hyperbole with the shaming a nation nonsense.

But I'm sure if you're agreeing that the phenomenon exists, or trying to say it should exist or whatever. Perhaps if it's your step mum you think she is immune from criticism or something? who knows.

We've had the AntiDog nonsense, next we'll get the AntiRabbit.

In reply to winhill:

But what is wrong with spending thousands on a pet? I would not - but I do spend thousands on sport/outdoor pursuits. Some folk buy daft cars, some have massive houses they do not need - as long as the treatment of the animals is humane I fail to see the problem (interest already declared!).

In reply to winhill:



She's not my stepmum.

You're starting to sound a little hysterical and as a consequence it's hard to follow your thinking.

In reply to Tall Clare:



It isn't easy to.

In reply to winhill:

Brilliant.. from the 'I went toe to toe'...

Angriest little man in the world... total little man anger going on constantly...

You can judge the morality of a nation by the way the society treats its animals.
-Mahatma Gandhi

So yeah, caring for animals.. what shits!

I love you winhill.. you make me laugh more than anyone on here.. you are also the easiest member on UKC to destroy the arguments of because you get so ranty, so keen to insult you lose any thread in your argument..

Got to say you've out done yourself this week.

In reply to Tall Clare:


You said you father's wife, that's usually a step mum but the exact relationship is not the question is it?

Are you saying that we should remove people from a critique of a social movement because they are family relations? Otherwise what is your point?


I'll keep it simple as you've been getting your arse in a right twist.

Which countries do you think, shame us as a nation, over our attitude to dogs?

Which countries do you believe cosset their dogs more than the UK?

In reply to IainRUK:



BY which I imagine he meant treating them humanely, not starving them beating them and so on. I think you can be pretty certain Gandhi would be puzzled by anyone spending a fortune on a pet.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I liked the 'activisists' on TV recently who went around their park with spray dye bright pink orange etc, and highlighted all the dog dirt.

Whether or not it made owners more reponsible or not I dont know , but it was easier not to stand on it.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Nothing but what is wrong with critiquing people who do just that?

We point and laugh at the prawn sandwich brigade at Arsenal/ Man U and this is the same. Like a rabbit owner who spends a thousand pounds insuring something you can get free off gumtree, what a f*cking muppet.

But OTOH if there is a social movement that this behaviour also describes then we can understand that as well.

Does the spending of thousands of pounds on pets change the behaviour of owners? Yes, like I said a few days ago, I was threatened by one owner on exactly that basis.

Does it demonstrate the advancing commoditisation, humanisation and fetishising of pets? yup and there's research that supports that.

Is it a recent phenomena? Yes, how long have muppets been insuring rabbits for or dogs or cats?

Is it getting worse? You should probably know but vets' fees are increasing sharply, driven exactly by insurance, especially as single claim policies mean that customers opt for the most expensive treatment that comes in close to their claim limit.

3 pet insurers left the market in 2012 citing vets' fees, last year premiums jumped. So people are paying their £5K but deferring payment over the lifetime of the dog.

But your example of other costs works, in the sense that often this isn't an argument about dogs or the AntiDog or the AntiRabbit, or even animals or animal welfare/ rights. It's about property rights and the people for whom their sense of entitlement increases as the money leaves their bank.

In reply to winhill:


Or it could get ill in year one in which case it pays to have insurance. Insurance is a bet, one that on average you'll lose from financially but you're hedging against having to do something you don't want to do, choosing between killing your pet (which you're 'dubiously'* attached to) or money which you may or may not have.

I don't insure the value of my car because it's cheaper, I'm gambling I'll save in the long run and if I'm wrong I'm willing to lose it. I'm not willing to lose my dog in order to save a little money each month.

*I doubt many people would consider forming an emotional attachment to a pet as dubious. Have you ever wondered why other people don't think quite like you? It's probably not that you're smarter than them (though you may well be).

You keep coming back to your American example but do you think the rate of pet insurance in the US might have something to do with families prioritising human-health insurance so they don't have to make the same awful life or money-they-don't-have decisions for their loved ones? Thankfully not a problem we face.

jk

In reply to winhill:

if there is nothing wrong with it, why would you criticise it?

In reply to MG:

why is it a bad thing? The 5k I spent we just didnt buy an engagement ring.. cobbled together a kitchen.. isn't up to you how you spend your money? Or is 1000's a year on cigarettes better?

Honestly I find this one of the oddest threads for a while.. what bastards people are loving their pets.. no wonder win hill is spitting with rage.. f*ckers!

In reply to IainRUK:

Well, I agree that this is a bizarre thread.

Winhill's much misunderstood point is, I think, that our relationship to our pets is changing, becoming more personal, more sentimental and more heavily invested. He is perhaps hinting that pets are taking on some of the affection that adults formerly reserved for children. He is suggesting that this societal change is part and parcel of the sort of division in society which is the driving force of this thread.

Whether you regard this as a good or bad thing is another matter (though personally I might wonder about whether I had my priorities quite right if I found myself spending a grand on insuring a rabbit, rather than, say, blowing the same sum on a weekend of sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll, or donating it to a charity which aims to prevent children - or even rabbits - from starving).

But I don't think that's the point of this thread which is, that some dog owners appear to have a rather limited appreciation of how some non-dog owners feel about their dogs (and vice-versa of course), and that part of the reason for this is that those of us who have pets are becoming increasingly sentimental and indulgent about them, while, those that don't have pets, rather obviously, aren't.

Furthermore I think this might be a good time - when polarisation and bitterness appears to be winning the field - to point out that all of us on this thread actually seem to agree that the dog-owner who inadvertently brought this thread to life was not the very model of dog-ownership to which others should aspire.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I gave you an example that isn't 'wrong' but is laughable.

In fact the Wabbit policy looks like a carbon copy of Care4Pets rabbit cover, the acupuncture is accompanied by £750 of homeopathy cover for the lucky rabbit too.

By a lucky serendipity Care4Pets, the insurers, is owned by Vets4Pets the vets, who went from zero to 100 branches in little over a decade and can diagnose via your wabbit homeopathic assessment.

Vets4Pets is itself, as of last year, now owned by Pets at Home who are able to supply your pet homeopathic needs (the largest pet outlet in the UK). Pets at Home having been acquired by a bunch of US merchant bankers for £1billion.

So our rabbit relationships are being projected into the 21st century by a bunch of charlatans selling shit to morons.

OTOH if I could make a fortune selling electric water to people in tracksuits perhaps I'd be tempted.

In reply to Wicamoi:


Exactly.. as usual though, bikes and dogs threads quickly head off.. but I think generally everyone was in agreement with Tim's displeasure at what went on, I certainly get annoyed in those situations.

In reply to Wicamoi:



Bizarrely it was Dr.S at work who mentioned the children thing.

People who think it isn't happening are simply in denial, the BBC has an article from 2006 about it, it's hardly unknown about.

More recently:

According to a 2006 Direct Line survey on pet funerals, 82% of the dog owners who held a funeral said a proper service to mark their passing is the least they deserve after a lifetime of devotion. In addition, 74% of those dog owners who held funerals for their pet said that the service for their four-legged friends was just as important as a family funeral.

The emotional connection between pets and their owners is getting closer. Indeed, according to Mintel’s Pet Food and Supplies UK March 2012 report, 66% of pet owners say they “treat their pet with as much care as they would a child”. As a result, we’ve seen a blurring of boundaries as companies market to increasingly humanised animals.

These people have the moral and mental capacity of a coco pop.

In reply to winhill:

Depends who replied.. rather bias on who replies.. I've had dogs all my life, lost 3, never had a dog funeral.

You are picking an idiotic fight. If people treat their dogs and kids well, why does that matter, plenty of people treat animals and kids eqully poorly. Plus their is a huge association between animal abuse and violence/human rights abuses..

If people who treat animals well is your main concern you have the moral capacity of a rice crispy... basically the coco pops poor relative..

In reply to winhill:



Well no shit that people who had just held a funeral for a pet thought the pet deserved one, if the pet hadn't deserved a funeral they would not have given them one! What a pointless statistic.


If the relative was my mother in law, I'd feel the same way, probably going to attend a funeral of a mutt that isn't mine tomorrow! Jokes aside, again we are basing this off the small minority that have any sort of organised funeral for a pet so therefore a pretty specific cross section of society. These people are either just a little odd or are blasè about saying that a dog is 'one of the family'.


This statistic obviously has a wider scope, but it's obviously from a multiple choice. If people are given choices of

A) I am actively abusive to my dog
B) I neglect my dog
C) I feed him at weekends only
D) I take good care of my dog, as I would a child

What do you think they are going to pick?


Who cares if people want to molly coddle their pets? And what exactly does it have to do with the O.P.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-26184916