Encountering dogs while riding

Fuck man I don't spray the dog, I spray the owner!

Hah! You're so on top of it! Love the dog, spray the irresponsible and clueless. And on we go . . .

I had one d bag in Abbotsford threaten to stab my dog, he is a very large dog. He startled my dog coming up the trail. The dog took an instant dislike to him. This d bag was walking with his 4 or 5 year old kid. Packing his compound bow. I would have no problem going to jail if he made any attempt to hurt my dog. A cool head made him go away calmly. Oh how I wanted to kick some ass at that moment.

Might be best to not aggravate a already tense situation with threats of violence.

really?

you're in a public place without control of your animal and you're threatening to hurt someone else that has had an uncomfortable encounter with your animal? you seem to be missing the point entirely with this thread and particularly with ecoriva's post. a startled dog can quickly become an aggressive dog and in this situation safety of human life outweighs the right of the animal's life. you need to step outside yourself and examine this situation from the pov of someone who may have a fear of dogs, particularly of a dog that is not exhibiting calm and controlled behaviour and one who is not in control by his owner. instead of wanting to kick some ass you should have been apologetic and understanding.

what would you be saying if your startled animal's prey drive had kicked in and had decided to chase one of these children who ran from the dog because they were frightened? that is the situation you need to be thinking of. if you don't know for 100% certainty that you have 100% control of your animal with voice commands then you should either have your animal on a leash or at home until he's been trained correctly.

I had one d bag in Abbotsford . . .

tazzmenn, you make me cranky. Your use of "d bag" is misdirected. If we pretend that we should all hit "d bags" on the head, well then, your head should be mighty sore. To give oneself such self importance (self priority) over others, even 5 year old children, is reprehensible and goes a long way towards arguing that you should not own an animal at all.

If (and I really mean IF) you have been reading this thread and thought that your post was anything but biggotry and stupidity, you stand out as exemplary. Dumb ass dog owners need a poster boy too. I, and all reasonable people the world over, hope to never cross your path. So do everyone a favour and stay home.

Syncro you pretty much nailed it. However, just to hammer the point further home, "the pov of someone who may have a fear of dogs" should be irrelevant. The point of view that counts is that of absolutely anyone. There should be no contact unless its invited. Period. Whether the person has a phobia, or a fear, or loves dogs - it doesn't matter. If your a dog owner and you do not know the person you are approaching, you can't know their feelings about your dog. So, control your dog until you do know. Period. The guy might be deep in thought about a serious issue. He doesn't need your dog's disturbance. He has a right to be unhindered. Period. You will never know. Period. Its none of your business. Period. Keep your dog to yourself.

tazzmenn, you make me cranky. Your use of "d bag" is misdirected. If we pretend that we should all hit "d bags" on the head, well then, your head should be mighty sore. To give oneself such self importance (self priority) over others, even 5 year old children, is reprehensible and goes a long way towards arguing that you should not own an animal at all.

If (and I really mean IF) you have been reading this thread and thought that your post was anything but biggotry and stupidity, you stand out as exemplary. Dumb ass dog owners need a poster boy too. I, and all reasonable people the world over, hope to never cross your path. So do everyone a favour and stay home.

Syncro you pretty much nailed it. However, just to hammer the point further home, "the pov of someone who may have a fear of dogs" should be irrelevant. The point of view that counts is that of absolutely anyone. There should be no contact unless its invited. Period. Whether the person has a phobia, or a fear, or loves dogs - it doesn't matter. If your a dog owner and you do not know the person you are approaching, you can't know their feelings about your dog. So, control your dog until you do know. Period. The guy might be deep in thought about a serious issue. He doesn't need your dog's disturbance. He has a right to be unhindered. Period. You will never know. Period. Its none of your business. Period. Keep your dog to yourself.

OK there guy you can step off your HIGH HORSE any time now. PERIOD.

I understand that people can get defensive when any threat, real or perceived can be against their children, but this tough guy attitude and free pass to do what ever or say whatever when kids are involved is bull shit. What is worse for the kid? The time that a dog scared them in the woods or when daddy got accidentally stabbed or shot for over reacting, or that daddy fucked with the wrong dude, or that daddy is in jail for his overreaction and mommy can't make the bills and stuff.

You are telling Tazzman to take a step back and look at the situation when you should do the same.

You were not there, and telling tazzman that no matter what he is in the wrong for feeling upset or frustrated at the guys comment to him is bull shit again.

There are plenty of shitbag parents out there that need to watch there kids more and keep them under control.

What is the protocol in these situations (actual situations I witnessed)?

Kids playing in a semi busy street running in and out of street with no regard for anything. Teenager driving his car with in speed limit slams on his brake and swerves to miss kid who jumps out. The kid is now in front of stopped car. Teenager jumps out and is freaked out doesn't know if he hit the kid or what, seeing if the kid is alright. Then super dad who witnessed the whole thing and a few neighbours run over to see if the kid is alright. As Dad was running over he grabbed a baseball bat and was threatening the teenager and accusing him of trying to kill his kid (before tending to his own child that is still laying there). Myself and neighbors are trying to calm down the dad and keep him away from the teenager who just wants the kid to be OK while other neighbours tend to the child in the street. The kid was fine and didn't actually get hit by the car from what we can tell and was probably just laying there in fear cause his dear ol Dad is loosing it. Can we call that Dad a D-Bag??? or does he get a pass too cause his kid should be able to dart out in the street worry free?

Another situation.

Bro in law and myself are waiting in the parking lot for family to come out, two cars away kid (8-11 ish years old)throws his fast food drink out the window out in the parking lot. Bro in law walks over picks up the drink container and calmly tells the Super Dad who is sitting right there in the drivers seat that his kid just dropped this on the ground. Super Dad then starts screaming and yelling profanities to never come near him or his kid again and that his kid can do whatever the fuck he wants and mind your own business and on and on. So bro in law walks over to the garbage (right in front of super dads car not 2 meters away) and throws the drink while shaking his head at the dad who is still screaming profanities all while little junior is right there in the car. How about that one can we use the D-bag there or no cause junior shit bag should be able to what ever he want and not have anyone tell him other wise.

Situation #3

Walking in an multi use off lease acceptable area and stop to talk to a friend that I haven't seen in a while who is also with her dog. The dogs have a sniff and then go about playing a couple of kids (5-7ish) close by start playing with the dogs and start up a game of chase the dogs which is fine as the dogs seem to be into it and we are keeping a good watch. The kids escalate the game of chase to throwing there exercise balls that they had at the dogs. The dogs do not like that so we tell the kids to stop that game and that it is no longer fun for the dogs, they stop for 2 or 3 minutes then start back up again and the dogs are not liking it, but the kids are loving it and not listening at all when we tell then to stop it. The Moms (no we did not know them) are thirty feet away sitting on a park bench gabbing away, so I walk over and ask them to please tell the kids to quit bugging the dogs. Mom # one jumps up and gets in my face telling not to tell her kids what to do, and that if I don't like it I can leave, and that dogs should even be off lease and that this is a kids park only and on and on with all sorts of babble that was not true. She is spouting off this and that while the whole time the kids are jumping a little fence and running up and down the bank that has a sign that reads "Please stay off Bank to prevent Erosion" but mom said that it's OK cause they are just kids. Let me guess she gets a pass??

These are just a few situations that I have witnessed first hand. I don't think that those three situations that I have seen were the only ones in the world of parents with the DO ANYTHING SAY ANYTHING attitude because kids are involved.

So if Tazzman is the appointed poster boy for Dumb ass dog owners; can we assume that you are the fearless leader of parents mentioned?

And No I don't have my own kids, but I do have nephews that I spend a lot of time with, and I understand that feeling of doing whatever it takes to keep them safe, but that shouldn't give me a free pass to say anything or do anything.

I am really sorry that your son got hurt, and I wish that it never happened I truly do.

I will redirect your comment towards you and see how it feels.

you make me cranky. Your use of "d bag" is misdirected. If we pretend that we should all hit "d bags" on the head, well then, your head should be mighty sore. To give oneself such self importance (self priority) over others, even 5 year old children, is reprehensible and goes a long way towards arguing that you should not be out in public at all.

This tread was originally asking what a guy can do when he encounters dogs on a trail and just like any tread it can get a little side tracked. Phobia's are phobia's and the whole world is not going to cater to you because you have a fear of water/dogs/heights/snakes/clowns/etc…. If a Phobia is never addressed it will never be managed and that is going to take some serious commitment. I applaud the OP for actually taking the thought to seek professional help in this matter. He knows that he loves biking in the woods and he knows that their are people who take their dogs in the same areas so he is going to need to do something about that, good on him.

I agree that dog owners need to be in control of their dogs. It is also unrealistic for anyone to assume that the world owes them anything and that the world needs to change and regulate to a small few. If that were the case the trails on the Shore would be shut down a long time ago because people didn't like the dirty, rude, naked, loud music playing mountain bikers in their neighborhood. I know that a phobia isn't the same being annoyed at someone parking in front of your house but the message is the same.

OK there guy you can step off your HIGH HORSE any time now. PERIOD . . .

I am very sorry if I have been atop a high horse. But, you know what? Sometimes thats OK. I guess I am still up there.

Now, as for your post:

- "free pass with kids:" what nonesense, no one is advocating that

- then you spit out a bit of nonsense about daddy getting in with the wrong guy - what crap: its just plain stupid policy to not stand up for whats right or important because the other guy might pull a gun and shoot you. Something tells me that that's not how you operate. Like with tazzmenn, the way you write has all the markings of someone who self-identifies as a tough guy. Yeah, we have to judge situations and use our reason, and our need to generally get along with others. We always need to try to avoid unecessary conflict, but you pushing that the people you don't side with should cower. Weak argument.

- "shitbag parents?" yes there are some, though the vast majority are not. Besides, you are quite wrong in even hinting that children, even those of shitbag parents, kind of get what's coming. As an adult yourself, it should be your duty to safeguard children; from dog interference, dog attack, stupid dog owners, and yes, stupid shitbag parents. (Never seen a situation where a child needs someone, even the police/child services, to protect them?) I don't like brats or obnoxious kids either. They can make me angry. But maturity means that, while I would rather get them away from me, I would engage in whatever I could manage to protect them from a danger. The angle of your opinion on this is screwed.

- "dad's with baseball bats" - let me give you a hint: when you start using examples of extreme or criminal behaviour to argue your point, you have lost it and should start over. Lots of horrible stuff goes on in this world. None of that will ever excuse the violation of any individual rights, and even moreso, will never absolve adults from their duty to protect those who need it. I include dogs, cats, horses and even idiots in this.

- "you and your bro in law:" again, you really think its reasonable to attack the stupidity of children. Wow. Children are not fully developed cognitively. You are supposed to be. So, protect kids from their idiocy, and stop being an idiot yourself. Your arguments are at the level of a pissed off confused adolescdent.

- "screaming superdad?" He sounds like a complete shit, I think your take on him is probably on the money. What does that prove?

- situation #3: sounds like some obnoxious ill mannered kids. You say they were not listening to you telling them to stop. Well, because they are just stupid kids, its up to you to be a grownup and go over, take your dogs away from them and probably talk to their parents. You say you approached the moms and they reacted aggressively and uncooperatively. They obviously sucked at that moment. BUT, here is where you miss the big important point. Do they get a pass? No, I would have given them a piece of my mind. But, knowing that unpleasent interactions are a part of life, after yelling at them, I would take my dogs and move on.

- a note on situation #3: I know municiplal law very well. In fact I have written some of it in a past life. You seem to assume you know about where your dog has a right to be and where your dog does not need to be leashed. You are grossly overestimating. In British Columbia, your dog should be leashed on all property within a municipal boundary. There is no such thing as a "multi use off lease acceptable area." The only exception is within designated off-leash areas. The only exception! Now, like so many bylaws, this is almost completely unenforced. And don't get me wrong! I am fine with this. You are right to imply that life is a kind of messy open affair. It would be extremely dumb to live trying to insist that everything goes properly and all the rules are obeyed all the time. Many rules are there and enforced only when things go wrong. But by then the enforcement is not by Police Officers, or by ByLaw Officers, but by Lawyers and courts. Being an adult means that you remain vigilant against things going wrong, and this means the important things. Thus, the ByLaw is on the books anyway, and it is there for any lawyer to use against you. So, if something bad happened, say one of those kids were to be hurt by one of your dogs, regardless that the kids were brats, and the moms were crappy people, the law would come down on you. Is being a hardass defender of your incorrectly percieved rights worth being sued over?

- "me, the fearless defender of bad parents." Sorry to disappoint. I hate bad parents. But this discussion is about dog-human and safety issues. I have two sons, who would never have been allowed to do what those brats did to your dogs. I would not have told you that your dogs should be leashed. I would have intervened and stopped my boys from doing anything that your dogs didn't like. I would have apologized to you.

- "you don't have kids." No fucking fooling. Playing with your nephews is obviously not helping you understand. And I don't mean understanding parenting. I mean understanding the deeper meaning of all of this. I think we are responsible for our children and our dogs. But, your inability to prioritize between children (people in general) and dogs is the real disagreement I have with people that talk like you. So, even though I love dogs, up against the safety of a child (it doesn't have to be mine) there is a quantum difference. Children and people are not just more important and valuable than any domesticated animal, they are countlessly more valuable. And this is not a parent thing, its a human thing. Canvas everyone you know. Ask your mother. But, so what does it mean. All I ask that this mean is that we adults protect other people and be humble in assessing the 'rights' of our dogs. Is that too much for you?

- you probably don't see yourself this way, but self-entitled dog people like you are the problem. Your post is like a little expression of events that have pissed you off and you can't let go. And because they involve parents and kids, you would like to absolve yourself of your "legal duty to protect" and argue that dogs shouldn't be demonized because sometimes people do dumb/mean shit. Wake the fuck up. All I have concluded in this thread is simply that "dog owners should control their dogs and prevent those dogs from violating any person's space, unless the dog is invited in by that person. Is that really so unreasonable to you? If so, like tazzmenn, stay the hell away from me (and probably most other people).

- trying to write this discussion off because the thread began with issues about a poor guy's phobia. Thats just like you giving up. Fine by me. If your views are unwavering, well you are the problem and are in the way.

- Phobias - something tells me you know shit about phobias, so you should stand silent on that.

I am very sorry if I have been atop a high horse. But, you know what? Sometimes thats OK. I guess I am still up there.

- Phobias - something tells me you know shit about phobias, so you should stand silent on that.

Your rebuttal to my post is pretty much spot on with what I thought it would go like: full of accusations and name calling.

Did you actually read my post? because if you did you might want to take a deep breath and re-read it because I think you missed quite a bit or filled in with your own agenda.

"We always need to try to avoid unecessary conflict, but you pushing that the people you don't side with should cower. Weak argument" ??? I am trying to figure out where that is coming from, but honestly can't find it anywhere.

The only thing I can think of is being pushy would be the use of the word "Period" after every sentence in a paragraph to try to get my point across, but then again I am not advocating anything.

My nonsense about "free pass with kids". I know no one is directly advocating that, but it seams to be an attitude that I have witnessed a few times. The "D-Bag" (we will call him Reggie for simplicity) who threatened to stab tazzmans dog is exactly the attitude I am speaking of. Would it be OK if the the dog was a police dog and Reggie said those things to the dog handler? Reggie would probably be in cuffs on the ground right there in front of his kids. Wait a police dog has never went up to innocent people barked and scared them.

Sorry I did not go to the same municipal law writing, debate school as you, and I appreciate the tip on how to start an argument (which really wasn't my intention). The point of that story was super dad loosing his shit and cloaking it as protecting the safety of his child when he didn't once go over to his son to see if he was all right even after the son stood up and walked away.

How does tazzman and my writing indicated that we are "tough guys"? I am actually a very nice and rational person. In the next sentences you say that we should judge situations and avoid conflict: Isn't that exactly what tazzman did??????

The part about daddy getting into it with the wrong guy was to show that Reggie didn't need to approach tazzman and threaten to stab his dog, and it might have gone horribly wrong for him. Was threatening the life of tazzmans dog the "right" or "important" thing to do? Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't? I was not there, but to label tazzman as the poster boy for all bad dog owners in the world was rather harsh and unfair just as I labelled you the leader of bad parents (I don't actually think that: I was just redirecting your own logic). Just to state that I don't know tazzman, or have never met him so I am not personally defending him in any way.

I never once hinted that the "shitbag kids" get what they deserve, so please don't think that, or try to plant that seed onto others, because it simply isn't true.

My brother in law and I never did "attack the stupidity of children" as you stated, I actually didn't even say or do anything: my brother in law calmly and rationally spoke to the dad who was sitting in the drivers seat. My brother in law never actually talk to, or even looked in the direction of the kid yet the dad still started spewing off "don't come near my kid or you will be sorry" among other things. "Your son dropped this" was all that was said to the dad. Hopefully that can help clear things up about your picture of the situation.

The lovely mother situation: Here is a little clarification for you since you need exact
details about everything or you will simply fill in details to your liking. The area is designated an off leash area I worded it "multi use off lease acceptable area" so to not lead people into thinking it was a dog park only. I understand that the "Law" would have come down on me if something happened to one of the kids as a result of my dog but is that really fair? If shitbag kid had a history of animal abuse and grew up to be serial killer (That IS a main characteristic of one), but in his wake numerous animals were put down, and mommy and her lawyers lived a good life off many good hard working people that pets had enough and defended themselves; is that fair as well? I don't really understand where I missed the point though: you stated what you would do is exactly what I did do only I didn't yell, as I didn't need to stoop to the mom's irrational level.

Not every dog that invades others peoples space or scares others needs to be treated as a stone cold killer. I know of someone that loves the out doors and spent as much time as she could in them. One day someone attacked her and she was petrified of going into the woods for years. Unless she was in a large group she wouldn't go near them. Later she got a puppy that grew up to be a large breed dog and finally she was able to go into the woods with just her dog and didn't need to gather up or rely on a group of friends to feel safe in the woods again. Her dog will bark if she gets startled in the woods as it can feel her anxiety. Her dog stays close and is in her control, but will still bark. If she gets startled by a man and his kids does her dog deserve to be stabbed for simply barking.

I can prioritize over dogs or children, and nowhere did I say or indicate that dogs should come first. I am not one of those self entitled dog people that you like to label as public enemy number one and the "Problem".

I am sorry if what you read doesn't appeal to your every wish and "in the way" of your agenda. I am not really "giving up" on anything. I was simply bringing back the original topic of this thread that others seem to derail for their own purpose ( I thought the OP deserved that respect).

I did use examples which I have personally witnessed, which you also did, so I can't really understand why you trying to call me on that. As I said, I have be around for awhile and been to a lot of places so I can happily say that those few examples are not the norm. Did they piss me off? Yes! Do they still piss me off? No! Am I trying to absolve myself out of any legal duty to protect children because of it? I really don't think so.

I can see your points and agree with most of them.

Let me put it in short bullets so that you can see what my points are and are not.

- Cloaking irrational and aggressive confrontational behavior by using "safety of the children" is bullshit.

- Demonizing animals or people for ones own fears or phobias should not be an acceptable practice.

- Safety of children first ( I think we both agree on that) over domestic animals. Children I agree with, as they are relatively innocent, but for "all people" I would have to disagree as there are many people in this world that are a negative to the human race. I would gladly have a dog that bit someone out of self defense spend the night in my house with my family than a serial rapist/murderer that has had numerous chances to be good but still offends with no remorse. Call me ignorant and part of the problem but that's just my opinion. (sorry that one was a little longer)

- Name calling and depicting others under false/misunderstood circumstances is not acceptable to some.

- People should be in control of their animals.

- People's personal space should be respected by dogs and dog owners (which according to you is ALL that you have concluded in this thread so we can agree there) but every dog interaction does not need to be treated like a life or death situation.

Hopefully that helps clarify some things.

As far as Phobia knowledge goes we can probably be in the same boat on that one. If telling someone that they should seek professional help if they want to manage a debilitating phobia is bad then I guess I should keep silent (I won't tell people who need to get their car fixed to go to a mechanic either: just to be on the safe side).

It may be hard to come across in a format like this but my feathers are not all ruffled and my blood isn't boiling. I just have some spare time to engage in an online discussion.

can we go back to riding bikes in the woods again .

ummmm , my offer to help the OP still stands . . .

The "D-Bag" (we will call him Reggie for simplicity) who threatened to stab tazzmans dog is exactly the attitude I am speaking of.

i think a lot of what you have to say has some validity, but the key point seems to be getting missed. in this situation, tazz's dog was off leash, not in control and exhibiting some form of aggressive behaviour. we don't know what type of previous encounters this person or his kids may have had with dogs before, so while we can say his reaction/words may not have been the best choice his reaction may have been understandable considering the possibility of any previous negative dog interactions.

imo i don't think it's reasonable to expect a person to have to deal with an uncontrolled dog or to expect someone else to be comfortable around dogs. the onus is entirely on the dog owner to control his animal in a manner that does not impact others.

i think a lot of what you have to say has some validity, but the key point seems to be getting missed. in this situation, tazz's dog was off leash, not in control and exhibiting some form of aggressive behaviour. we don't know what type of previous encounters this person or his kids may have had with dogs before, so while we can say his reaction/words may not have been the best choice his reaction may have been understandable considering the possibility of any previous negative dog interactions.

imo i don't think it's reasonable to expect a person to have to deal with an uncontrolled dog or to expect someone else to be comfortable around dogs. the onus is entirely on the dog owner to control his animal in a manner that does not impact others.

I understand the key point that tazz's dog was exhibiting some form of aggressive behavior; to what extent we don't know, and if we were to ask both parties what that behavior was the two stories would be polar opposite from a blood thirsty beast looking to eat a child to my dog only looked in their general direction.

It doesn't matter what the extent of Reggies past goes with dogs to justify an extreme, aggressive, unnecessary reaction, just because kids are involved. Like I said I have no idea what happened that day imo Reggie or parents like him should not be able to utter serious threats under unnecessary circumstances (once again I am not saying the situation that day was an unnecessary reaction). Tazz never (for what I can comprehend from his post) got in the guys face in a confrontational matter; he voiced his opinion on a public forum. Should he have had more control of his dog? Yes! Should he have chosen his words more carefully on the forum? Probably! He was stating his frustration with Reggie and the way Reggie chose to handle the situation.

I am in full agreement that it is up to the dog owner to have their dog under control and that it isn't up to every person to be 100% comfortable around all dogs (I am not and I have large dogs for 20 years).

My main issue is the attitude that it's all right to give parents the green light to say/act aggressively to others in the disguise of "safety of the children" when it is unnecessary.

can we go back to riding bikes in the woods again .

This is what we all would like to do without our kids being attacked by an out of control aggressive dog, or our dogs being stabbed by an over reacting aggressive parent.

I understand the key point that tazz's dog was exhibiting some form of aggressive behavior; to what extent we don't know, and if we were to ask both parties what that behavior was the two stories would be polar opposite from a blood thirsty beast looking to eat a child to my dog only looked in their general direction.

It doesn't matter what the extent of Reggies past goes with dogs to justify an extreme, aggressive, unnecessary reaction, just because kids are involved. Like I said I have no idea what happened that day imo Reggie or parents like him should not be able to utter serious threats under unnecessary circumstances (once again I am not saying the situation that day was an unnecessary reaction). Tazz never (for what I can comprehend from his post) got in the guys face in a confrontational matter; he voiced his opinion on a public forum. Should he have had more control of his dog? Yes! Should he have chosen his words more carefully on the forum? Probably! He was stating his frustration with Reggie and the way Reggie chose to handle the situation.

I am in full agreement that it is up to the dog owner to have their dog under control and that it isn't up to every person to be 100% comfortable around all dogs (I am not and I have large dogs for 20 years).

My main issue is the attitude that it's all right to give parents the green light to say/act aggressively to others in the disguise of "safety of the children" when it is unnecessary.

i get what you're saying, i just don't think it's fair to criticize someone's reaction to a situation without knowing or understanding their history. i agree that it's not okay for parents to freak out in the guise of safety of children, but a large off leash dog that may be acting aggressively is not something to be taken lightly. put in the same situation as reggie i may have felt the need to use whatever means necessary to protect myself or my kids from an aggressive dog. while reggie's comment to tazz may have been too heavy handed, in a way him saying that he was willing to use his knife to ward off the dog if necessary maybe acts as a minor wake-up for tazz to either have his dog on a leash or do some more training with him.

i think best case scenario is that reggie still gets his point across over the displeasure with the dog's behaviour but doesn't be a dink about it.

i get what you're saying, i just don't think it's fair to criticize someone's reaction to a situation without knowing or understanding their history. i agree that it's not okay for parents to freak out in the guise of safety of children, but a large off leash dog that may be acting aggressively is not something to be taken lightly. put in the same situation as reggie i may have felt the need to use whatever means necessary to protect myself or my kids from an aggressive dog. while reggie's comment to tazz may have been too heavy handed, in a way him saying that he was willing to use his knife to ward off the dog if necessary maybe acts as a minor wake-up for tazz to either have his dog on a leash or do some more training with him.

i think best case scenario is that reggie still gets his point across over the displeasure with the dog's behaviour but doesn't be a dink about it.

100% agreed

100% agreed

Count me in. 99% Agreed.

jro, I guess we both have some time for this. Lets back down out of each other's faces. We can still argue, although I think we are close to done. Remember, when you see someone like me, up on a high horse, it might be because they really care, or, it might be like Don Quijote and they are fully deluded. Let's agree and disagree, but do so with better humour. Its just thoughts on a screen afterall.

Ok, first the body slam. Now you're throwing out things like dogs being treated as "stone cold killers," people threatening and being attacked by police dogs, kids turning into serial killers, and I can only imagine what next. Are you talking about the fairly cooperative, reasonable world most of us share, or some distopia? I for one do not mountain bike in some dark distopian extremity.

Now, I want to react to some of what you said. I don't care, per se, about arguing, or winning. Rather, I care about getting attitudes changed: not to fix everyone's disputes, but to bring some clarity to an issue I have a long history with. So:

"I understand the key point that tazz's dog was exhibiting some form of aggressive behavior; to what extent we don't know, " That's just it, we don't know . . . the risk isn't worth it, its that simple.

"to justify an extreme, aggressive, unnecessary reaction, just because kids are involved" Well, sure, but that's not relevant - two men yelling at each other, about the dog or anything else, is irrelevant . . . the kid still deserves to be safe, not just from attack, but also from aggresive threat (even if its nothing more than that). Remember, I have all the sweet, well mannered, normal little kids (including teenagers) in mind - not the brats of jerkoff parents. (Though the brats deserve the same.)

"Cloaking irrational and aggressive confrontational behavior by using "safety of the children" is bullshit." I am not cloaking this. I said I don't care about it. It is irrelevant to the fact that you are responsible for the "safety of children" regardless. To me this is about staying on point.

"demonizing animals" No one is doing this. It seems almost everyone hear loves animals. But as with the above point, what's important to this discussion is that we understand the relative place of animals in the human world.

"Like I said I have no idea what happened that day" Then stop talking about it. As in all discussions, anecdotes and anecdotal reflections (like on tazz's single incident) cannot prove a point and usually just stir emotional conflict. I want to talk about what the real issues are about dog's and people's rights. You are correct, this thread started about a guy's phobia, which led to a discussion of dog-human interaction and the proper ground rules for that. But you have shifted it towards the behaviour of parents, threats and bad behaviour "just because kids are involved." Now I know I have been a bit grumpy, but it has bothered me that a good discussion has been muddied by emotionally charged stories.

"Reggie or parents like him should not be able to utter serious threats" I agree, depending on the details of course. No-one should be uttering serious threats. If tazz's dog had attacked I would be fine with 'Reggie' attacking it, even killing it. If he attacked the dog and put his kid into safety, and then continued his attack and killed the dog, he should be charged with the appropriate offence (and there is one). The key is that things change once the kid is safe. If he got his kid safe, and the dog turned on him; I would again be fine with 'Reggie' attacking it and even killing it. If the dog was under control, none of this could happen. So, I am assuming the dog is not under control. If the dog attacks Reggie or his kid, there is no argument about levels of force. By not having control, the dog owner gives that right to Reggie to decide. If Reggie is good with dogs, and turns the attack into doggie play; well, so much the better.

"Should he have had more control of his dog? Yes! Should he have chosen his words more carefully on the forum? Probably." Enough said. No?

"I am in full agreement that it is up to the dog owner to have their dog under control and that it isn't up to every person to be 100% comfortable around all dogs." Again, it seems you and I are actually on the same side.

Anyway, I am off for a bit, so I'm done for a bit. Biking in Sedona!