Staff Dogs and Muzzles

mixenvixen

I'm sure this will get a a lot of back lash, as there are obviously a lot of dog lovers on this board, but I personally find most dogs intimidating- regardless of type.

I understand they give people a lot of love and to a lot of people can be a member of the family. It may just be because I have never personally had a dog (and on the flip side a lot of people I know who have never had cats dislike them) but I would rather people keep them on leashes in public and if they are aggressive take them to behavioural classes.

I know we should love all our animal friends- but when your dog barks at me or you let it come over and touch me, it makes me feel really uncomfortable. One of my brothers has aspergers syndrome and this makes him feel incredibly uncomfortable. I know some people have compared this to a child (i.e. what if a child did this?), but to be honest I can't really recall finding a small child that intimidating or them biting me to the extent in which this original assault was described.

I just thought I would bring in a point, that to non- dog lovers (sorry! Please don't persecute me for saying this! I really do respect your right to have one!) dogs seem pretty mean regardless of type. I know this may sound unfair. In a similar way its unfair to assume anyone wearing a hood is going to mug you. But just like a lot of people want youths to realise they can intimidate some people, I really wish some (not all!) dog owners would realise the same.

**Just my personal opinions!**

gregg1

mixenvixen wrote: »

I'm sure this will get a a lot of back lash, as there are obviously a lot of dog lovers on this board, but I personally find most dogs intimidating- regardless of type.

I understand they give people a lot of love and to a lot of people can be a member of the family. It may just be because I have never personally had a dog (and on the flip side a lot of people I know who have never had cats dislike them) but I would rather people keep them on leashes in public and if they are aggressive take them to behavioural classes.

I know we should love all our animal friends- but when your dog barks at me or you let it come over and touch me, it makes me feel really uncomfortable. One of my brothers has aspergers syndrome and this makes him feel incredibly uncomfortable. I know some people have compared this to a child (i.e. what if a child did this?), but to be honest I can't really recall finding a small child that intimidating or them biting me to the extent in which this original assault was described.

I just thought I would bring in a point, that to non- dog lovers (sorry! Please don't persecute me for saying this! I really do respect your right to have one!) dogs seem pretty mean regardless of type. I know this may sound unfair. In a similar way its unfair to assume anyone wearing a hood is going to mug you. But just like a lot of people want youths to realise they can intimidate some people, I really wish some (not all!) dog owners would realise the same.

**Just my personal opinions!**

You are perfectly within your rights to feel that way. I own a dog myself and I get sick to death of dog fanatics lambasting other people for not wanting to engage with their dogs in the way they think everyone should.

My dog is a pet, not a child and I certainly would respect the wishes of someone who did not want to interact with my dog and take whatever steps I needed to take to keep my dog away from them. Furthermore, I would not take it as a personal insult to me which I have to say, some dog owners do.

liam8282

gregg1 wrote: »

Off post a little but goater as far as I am we had sorted out our disagreements by agreeing to disagree and be civil. Yes I did have you on block for a while but not for long, didn't really see the point. Of course we will never agree on everything but I certainly do not hate anyone on this forum. Hope that clears that up.

I have to say I have also agreed with a lot of your posts on this thread. I think however it is a waste of time arguing with this person any further as they are just not being rational and are too blinkered to see the other side of the argument which is why he has had to resort to implying I am a liar.

gregg1 wrote: »

You implied I was being untruthful in rather an aggressive manner. I am afraid all your above allegations could also be levelled at you.

And where in God's name have you "proved" that what I said was not true What I said was that the kennels my friend approached gave that reason as to why they would not take that breed of dog. You have not proved this did not happen at all. Talk about twisting the facts to suit your argument. Jeez!

I cannot understand the persistance of these repeated comments that have already been answered.

It has been proven that insurance is not a reason to refuse the SBT breed, what more do you want?

You won't name the kennels that your friend approached so there is really nothing much more we can say about that until you do. Why is it proving so difficult to name any of these kennels?

Talking about twisting the facts, I have never called you a liar, only pointed out that the statements you were making were not true. You would only be a liar if you now repeated those comments knowing that it is not true.

All comments are here for everybody to see, go back and check for yourself, because you seem to be developing a very vivid imigination.

I am not blinkered and I am completely rational. That is why my comments are based on fact and experience, whereas yours are based on hear say.

System

As Zacksmum says this is off topic so we should let it lie now as its going nowhere.

All that has been said has been said and people can read all the threads and make their own mind up.

In the grand scheme of things I don't own a dog, kennel or dog walking business so I really don't care

System

Liam 1st paragraph

http://www.insurance4pets.com/insurance-for-a-staffordshire-bull-terrier/

LOL

liam8282

goater78 wrote: »

Liam 1st paragraph

http://www.insurance4pets.com/insurance-for-a-staffordshire-bull-terrier/

LOL

That tells us absolutely nothing new then.

I will add, are we talking about personal or business insurance again now? Even though I thought that both had been cleared up already.

System

A quote from the link.

"Did you know some pet insurers have started discriminating against this much maligned breed?"

Obviously you didn't realise this Liam.....

I am sure deep down you appreciate the fact you've learnt something new

liam8282

goater78 wrote: »

A quote from the link.

"Did you know some pet insurers have started discriminating against this much maligned breed?"

Obviously you didn't realise this Liam.....

I am sure deep down you appreciate the fact you've learnt something new

Yet you can't name one.

As I said before go to compare the market and get an insurance quote for a SBT.

Going over old ground with a sentence from a website that doesn't add anything is getting very tedious.

It doesn't even say that you can't get insurance, it says some insurers have started discriminating, what does that entail £5 a year extra because of hysteria created by people like yourself?

System

liam8282 wrote: »

Yet you can't name one.

As I said before go to compare the market and get an insurance quote for a SBT.

Going over old ground with a sentence from a website that doesn't add anything is getting very tedious.

It doesn't even say that you can't get insurance, it says some insurers have started discriminating, what does that entail £5 a year extra because of hysteria created by people like yourself?

Another quote from the link

"Pet insurance for Staffordshire Bull Terriers seems to be a tricky proposition"

Tricky would imply its not possible to get with some insurers. £5 extra a month would not be a "tricky proposition".

I'm impressed that you are still arguing despite being proved wrong.

liam8282

goater78 wrote: »

Another quote from the link

"Pet insurance for Staffordshire Bull Terriers seems to be a tricky proposition"

Tricky would imply its not possible to get with some insurers. £5 extra a month would not be a "tricky proposition".

I'm impressed that you are still arguing despite being proved wrong.

You haven't proven anything, merely quoted sentences of a paragraph, from a website selling insurance.

Which then goes on to sell you insurance for a SBT. Thus proving insurance isn't an issue.

For every insurance company you name that will not insure a SBT, I guarantee I will name 5 that will. So far you have named 0.

What exactly have proved?