Dangerous dog behaviour....solution?

marlasinger

Person_one wrote: »

Gosh, if you view "is your dog always on a lead?" as antagonistic you must get into a lot of fights!

It was an antagonistic response to my previous comment that I didn't think people should have 'out of control' dogs off the lead, and you know it was!!

I suppose it's like you thinking me 'bolding' my comment was 'rude'. :rotfl:

Raksha

krlyr wrote: »

With careful training, the use of a longline or secure areas, using a trainer or behaviourist and volunteers who have the choice to volunteer their dog to help. The desire/intent to achieve a good recall does not make it OK for your dog to pester others in public spaces, especially with behaviour that has the potential to be harmful to those dogs (even if he doesn't mean it aggressively, the Newfoundland's sheer size could cause injury to another dog - like I said before, what if he did it to an injured dog? One with spinal issues, hip dysplasia, one that had just had an operation and was on short on-lead walks in the park when the Newfoundland ran over to it?)

and we all have those facilities to hand ofcourse.

krlyr

Raksha wrote: »

and we all have those facilities to hand ofcourse.

A longline costs a few pounds from a petshop or on Ebay. If you're really strapped for cash, a reel of blue builders type rope will be even cheaper, and pretty tough. Knots tied along the length allow you to grab it or stamp on the end if you leave it trailing on the ground, to have the dog 'loose' but to be able to regain control quickly.
Fenced in parks can often be found, tennis courts can often be used, schools may be willing to allow use of their fields out of school hours, horse stables/arenas can be used free or for a small fee, dog training clubs may be willing to offer their venue.
Trainers are available for anyone to employ, many good trainers are in it for the dogs and will help out where they can even with people who are on a limited budget.
Join a dog forum and many members will be more than happy to help if they're local. I've done it for others, and had others do it for me.
Perhaps venuture out at quieter hours, with a friend or two to assist and keep watch for other dogs.
Failing all that, keep your dog on-lead. Provide alternative ways to exercise the dog - I took up jogging to allow my dogs to stretch their legs while on-lead. Agility, Flyball, HTM, tracking, cycling sledding, weight pull...there's no end of dog sports that can be done in controlled environments or on-lead. Many owners of breeds prone to poor recall (such as Huskies, Greyhounds, etc.) manage it for the entirety of the dog's life.
There's no excuse to let your dog harrass and potentially injure someone else's dog in a public space. The law says your dog needs to be in control in public spaces, and although a dog attack is a civil offence, it is just common sense to control your dog if you know it has unreliable recall. Not just for the sake of the other dogs but for your own dog's life, and the lives of humans who may get caught in the crossfire - what if your dog shoots off across the park to run to a dog on the other side of a nearby road, and causes a fatal RTA?

Hoof_Hearted

Well, krlyr, you talk most sense on here. You always have to be prepared for the worst scenario.

Person_one

Raksha wrote: »

and we all have those facilities to hand ofcourse.

Or, what the vast majority of (responsible) dog owners do, practice on an extendable lead and in training classes then find the most deserted and secure spot you can find for the first few times you let them off.

Most owners can train their dogs without acres of land and an army of staff and volunteers!

krlyr

Person_one wrote: »

Or, what the vast majority of (responsible) dog owners do, practice on an extendable lead and in training classes then find the most deserted and secure spot you can find for the first few times you let them off.

Most owners can train their dogs without acres of land and an army of staff and volunteers!

Just to say my list of options was an "or" list, rather than needing them all!

CFC

One day, one day someone will post on here and just happen to mention that they intend to breed, and they'll get helpful or kindly comments not a torrent of negative, patronising righteousness. Of course on that day pigs will fly.

I can only suggest that you take your passionate opinions out to the greater world and start a campaign for forced human sterilisations in many countries of the world, and campaign to all countries for people not to have any children while there is a single one in the world in need. There are far too many abandoned, starving and impoverished children already, so I do hope you who are so anti breeding unless it is for the Greater Good, are not bringing any children into the world yourself?

walwin

walwin wrote: »

Please don't think I'm being rude or insulting, but whatever label he has, your dog is a mongrel, so why on earth would you want to breed from him when the country is overrun with poor dogs waiting for someone to give them a home?

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

A lot of snobbery on here about cross-breeds/mongrels. Yes, we need more bulldogs that can't breathe and pure-breds with hip problems. Labradoodles are just brilliant house dogs -- intelligent, happy, non-aggressive, robust dogs with few inherited medical problems and a great temperament. They are ideal pets, if a medium size dog is preferred, and they are much in demand. In addition, some coats are non-shedding.

Another owner wants her female doodle to have one litter and there will be a queue of people wanting a pup. Not everybody wants a rescue dog -- a bit like buying a new car, some people want to know the history, particularly if they have younger children. The dog homes are full of Staffies and Staffie crosses, not doodles and other poodle crosses.

However, after his honeymoon, we probably will have him done.

I didn't make my point because of snobbery.
I've known many lovely mongrels and had my own lovely boy for 14 years because he had been abandoned on the street.

It sounds to me as though you are treating this as a bit of a lark which is worrying for the future of any pups that are born as a result of this mating

krlyr

CFC wrote: »

One day, one day someone will post on here and just happen to mention that they intend to breed, and they'll get helpful or kindly comments not a torrent of negative, patronising righteousness. Of course on that day pigs will fly.
?

One of my pet peeves is when a thread turns a bit negative, someone inevitably comes along and brands all the replies as pointless negativeness. Do you not think it's a bit insulting to those who've taken their time to explain why they disagree? Not every disagreement is simply for the sake of disagreeing. Many of us who disagree with irresponsible breeding have good reason. My reason was my big furry bundle of love I had to stand by as she was euthanised aged just 4 years old, riddled with health and behavioural problems because someone wanted a quick buck by flogging their litter through a freead magazine without doing the proper homework, socialisation and health testing. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and that is why I will say my part when it is appropriate. I held off commenting on it until OP had been given advice relevant to their thread and the discussion came around to the breeding aspect anyway.
I have always made it clear that I am not antibreeding, as a whole, I just am against irresponsible breeding. If a breeder were to come along and mention all the appropriate healthtests, the lineage of their dog and the intended mate, their plans for exposing the puppies to all the correct socialisation, training, etc. I would be one of the first in the queue to support them, but these have been mentioned and OP has yet to clarify if any of this has been done, and therefore people are questioning her. Maybe she is a responsible breeder who's been misjudged, maybe she's just in it for the cute factor/money, or maybe she's somewhere inbetween. Other posters are just expressing their opinions on the information we've been given.

CFC wrote: »

are not bringing any children into the world yourself?

I'm not having kids, actually. But this thread mentioned the breeding of dogs. Therefore posters are replying about the breeding of dogs.
To be pedantic, just because I don't volunteer for the NSPCC, doesn't mean I can't be against child abuse. I don't work for the Samaritans but that doesn't mean I don't believe in their cause either.
If working for charities makes your opinion more valid, then yes, I have volunteered for a dog rescue charity that deals with the fallout of overbred, undersocialised, undertrained dogs. But if you can't have an opinion on the irresponsible breeding of dogs unless you have had yourself sterilised, I guess I'd better bow out now..

Welshwoofs

CFC wrote: »

I can only suggest that you take your passionate opinions out to the greater world and start a campaign for forced human sterilisations in many countries of the world, and campaign to all countries for people not to have any children while there is a single one in the world in need. There are far too many abandoned, starving and impoverished children already, so I do hope you who are so anti breeding unless it is for the Greater Good, are not bringing any children into the world yourself?

I haven't actually mentioned anything to do with the Op's desire to breed from his/her dog....but you've hit my pet subject now. There absolutely should be campaigns/action (not forced sterialisation, obviously) to lower the birth rate on a global level because there's too many of us humans and the over-population situation is getting worse by the day (if not hour). Every animal, including us, should have a population that is sustainable in terms of resources.

Oh...and I didn't have kids.