New posts

EcoRiva's posts

115 posts found

Nov. 22, 2015, 2:36 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
This is why we should oppose electric bikes

I don't think anything has qualified as vitriolic, certainly not the thread in general over the last while. I don't fully agree with those who are agreeing with my last post. I'll simplify: ebikes are motor-bikes, I oppose them on hiking/biking trails. I am happy to push this aggenda forward. I see no reason to get emotionally engaged on this, because, like night riding, mountain-ebiking is still pretty minimal. It's not a problem yet. I forsee possible problems and know that it is best to deal with them in advance (now). If it becomes an acual problem, my attitude may change. But for now, I could give a hoot what norona is up to. He certainly isn't going to get me upset. I doubt we will ever cross paths.

small stuff:
I can't see any harm from norona's ebike ride.
The fat tires are probably good mitigaters. Snow would also protect the ground beneath.
Norona's photos seem to show that he was on a road of some kind.
We all know there are ebikes on the trails. Their pilots obviously think its OK. When one of them posts with photos, why not engage him and try to get some understanding from him. Get to know the opposition.
Norona might have been trolling, but if we use our smarts, surely he can be brought out into the light.

Nov. 20, 2015, 7:47 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
This is why we should oppose electric bikes

Let's all remember that we are a small activity based population with members who share interests and opinions, as well as many differences and takes on things. Norona (I'm already getting bored) is just a guy posting what he thinks is fun and good. He might have an aggenda (we all do) but BCParks is not giving a shit. Like I said, this is a legitamate issue worthy of discussion. But really . . . we are not (at least yet) at some giant precipice. Night riding is usually against municipal bylaws, but a small percentage of us enjoy doing it. For the most part no one has ever cared. Too small a phenomena to either enforce against or legislate to allow. The world is full of this. Norona is a case of this. I remember some guy posting somewhere, photos of a night ride on Burnaby Mountain. He created a very similar reaction. Anyone care? Not anymore. Long forgotten. Let's forget Norona. And lets not try to define acceptable snow cover as if a real regulation could ever be based upon it.

Nov. 19, 2015, 9:44 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
This is why we should oppose electric bikes

Everyone needs to sit back and put a smile on their face. Mountain biking is fun.

Within the realm of discussion, and if a vote were to take place; I would have us prevent any kind of motorized travel in our region’s woods (Park or Private lands) except roadways or purpose built areas put aside for moto etc. So, I am decidedly opposed.

However, in our current circumstances, I am not going to get worked up about it. It is an issue that we need to attend to, and if regulation is required, we need to have input. You know, adult-like behaviour. If circumstances change, I will reassess. It will be an ongoing discussion. Let’s not be derailed by taking on a personal struggle.

So far all norona has contributed to this thread is that he has fun on his motorized bike and likes putting up pictures of it. If people like norona want to participate in a thread by reading it, learning what it is about, and then playing at sticking a finger in the thread's "eye," so what? Ignore the trolling aspect. Don't let his small contribution to the discussion have such an impact. He is only a singular force, and behind the trolling seems to be someone who has found some fun. I will argue against his vehicle of choice and try to move the discourse towards a ban. (by way of reasoned argument.) But I’ve got my own fun to manage. Norona’s activity is not going to get in my way. If nothing happens to prevent ebikes on our trails, and they start to show up in hoardes: then I will get worked up and angry.

We all know there are noronas out there: that is why we are discussing the subject in the first place. Ignore, ignore, ignore, and victory is yours.

[and . . . apologies to absolutely everyone for trying to parent where I have no particular business . . . now get a good sleep and ride hard in tomorrow's sunshine; if you are not picking dirt out of your teeth, and if you don't pass at least one ebike, and you don't spray dirt in the face of it's rider, you ain't going hard enough.]

Oct. 27, 2015, 1:08 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
Burnaby Mountain 2015

Ah, municipal government: the least inventive, adaptive, and generally change-challenged government structure ever in this country.

Oct. 26, 2015, 4:59 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
Burnaby Mountain 2015

Thanks for the hard work done on behalf of us all. I really think you chose the best spots to repair, of the lower trail network. Being sick, I won't get to check it out for a bit, but the photos look great. It looks like you have improved things considerably in terms of the climbing direction. Excellent.

. . . and, off topic about night riding: the court ruling, against Abbottsford Bylaw, allowing homeless citizens (or anyone else) to camp overnight in city parks, just might riccochet down the line until it reaches, and permits cylists (or anyone else) to ride in city parks during the night. Who knows?

Sept. 13, 2015, 3:21 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
Encountering dogs while riding

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!

Sept. 13, 2015, 1:24 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
Encountering dogs while riding

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.

Sept. 12, 2015, 11:24 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
This is why we should oppose electric bikes

Ok, so far been with you. But this last post…

If I'm reading this right: Access rights no longer an issue, erosion studies accepted common knowledge, no hiker conflict, nobody will lump us with other used groups to ban us, the uninformed average Joe won't take the other side?

Most of this could be soundly disproved just by scrolling through the topics on this board alone. Better yet spend a minute looking through mtb history, and then boning up on the current issues mtb'ers are facing. Or even a moment of reflection would be enough for the average mountain biker I'd think.

How about: Ernie Crist (rip), Monica, the war in the woods, the chainsaw massacre, new hiker parking lot, and what does NSMBA do? The Sierra Club, militant environmental groups, the trail shutdown in Portland, the petions we've all signed to keep trails open, the fight for National Park access, etc, etc. Off the top of my head anyhow.

Hell, even my own forgotten unused little trail took years of neighborhood meetings and trail maintenance to keep open. And even then we were shut down, for most of the reasons you listed in the post above as non-issues.

Ok, anyhow. Sorry Eco, you seem like a good bloke.

Moving on. Shut them down now. Let the offroad e-bikers figure out their own issues, before they get lumped in with us and they become our issues. Let them figure out user conflict, trail impact studies, etc. Common sense says there's no way. But let them figure it out, and somewhere far away from the mtb and hiking trails.

I think the BLM in Moab got it right. Posted signs on trails banning e-bikes:

"The Moab BLM has determined that motor assisted bicycles (electric, gas or diesel) are motorized vehicles. Use of motor assisted bicycles is only allowed on motorized trails. Please visit the motorized recreation pages for trail information. The use of motor assisted bicycles is NOT allowed on mountain bike trails."

Sorry, maybe i wasn't clear enough. I am right with you on all of what you have said. And, I was not advocating any form of passivity. However, a lot of this history is history, and please don't tell me that we have accomplished nothing with all of it. We have. I think banning ebikes from trails will be easier than it would have in the bad old days. But, am I advocating that we all become complacent and ignore the challenges we still face? Not for a second. We should do whatever we must to ban e-mountainbikes from all of the trails we share, with ourselves and other human powered users.

The thing is though, we cannot do what the MOAB BLM did. So, we must get the authorities (municipal gov'ts, private LO, etc.) to do what the MOAB BLM did. Starting with a ban, and including education like plenty of signage.

I think, we are pretty much on the same page.

Sept. 12, 2015, 2:05 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
This is why we should oppose electric bikes

I completely understand that last two posts. I share their concerns about ebikes creating problems for all of us regarding trail access. Our organizations should address this issue; and as I noted earlier, get out ahead of it to nip it in the bud.

However, I am not overly concerned, and this is why. I am pretty sure that access rights for mountain biking are well established. This is not the early days. There is now a high level of governmental support based on their promotion of recreation and tourism and the fact that they know there is a sizeable and broad portion of their constuancy involved in this activity. It has also been proven that mountain biking does not tear trails to shreds, and that the mtb community are good trail stewards. And in spite of the odd user conflict, walkers and hikers are happy enough to share trails with mountain bikers.

Its because of all of this, along with what local governments actually say, that I am pretty confident that they will have no problem distinguishing between bikes and ebikes. They are simply too informed at this stage of things. If our fears are realized, I think every stakeholder will recognize that ebikes alone are the problem. For example, I think most hikers would say something like: I'm used to the mountain bikers and I am fine shareing the trail these days. But there have been motorized bikes showing up. They go too fast and the damage the trails. They need to go.

Now I think you are correct that the average joe will lump them all together. After all, the mountain bike based ebikes look very very much like standard mountainbikes. But the average joe doesn't care about any of this and is not a factor. If the average joe takes up mountain biking or e-mountainbiking, they will (like we all did) quickly become informed.

Sept. 12, 2015, 1:29 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
Encountering dogs while riding

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.

Sept. 11, 2015, 11:53 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
This is why we should oppose electric bikes

http://www.bikerumor.com/2015/09/11/counterpoint-marc-basilieres-take-on-e-bike-trail-access/#more-109968

Yes, very interesting. Lots of good thoughts, but a little difficult to pull out what is essential to the issue.

On one point though, for the ebike marketers and those who say it will help the physically disadvantaged: the argument doesn't stand up. I can put this one simply: if that is the point, start selling ebikes that contribute extra power only up to the limit of an average physically fit rider. There goes the zoom zoom. There goes the sales. And ultimately, there goes the whole idea. But of course that is not what they are doing. The percentage increases discussed in that interview are rediculous in the context of mountain biking and hiking trails. The power of what is being marketed only makes sense in terms of generating speed, power and thrills. Sounds like the territory of moto, quads, snowmobiles and so on. Their arguments are insulting bullshit, against which, we should give plenty of push back.

Ebikes are motorbikes plain and simple. This is really about companies trying to create markets. My sympathy is lost. Ebikes are a great idea on roadways which accomodate other motorized vehicles. The market should be those people who bike commute, and otherwise use bikes to get around. That is the only context in which they might find a legitimate place alongside bicycles.

Sept. 11, 2015, 8:41 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
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 . . .

Sept. 11, 2015, 5:31 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
Encountering dogs while riding

No No No No!
Understanding is always good. Knowing your dog "is a calm guy" is fine too. Heightened emotions are natural. BUT, NONE OF THAT MATTERS!
You should employ whatever means you need to, to keep your dog under your complete and total control (physical control by leash or collar) and out of other people’s personal space, unless invited otherwise.
Its not complicated. It is the dog owner's responsibility to do this and to be prepared so they can do this. There is no god given right to have dogs running around on the loose . . . even in the woods. Of course, its also a good thing that our dogs have this freedom but it comes with a big "but." As a dog owner, you risk something if you let your dog run free. You risk more if you do not have proper control (training, leash, collar). You risk your dog being attacked in self defense by a person whose space your dog has violated. Period. What that person feels they are defending need not be any of your interest. If you don't like the risk, leash your animal.

And further, that person owes you nothing. Not understanding. Not an explanation. Certainly not a justification. IN FACT, you owe them an apology for not having proper control over your calm guy dog. Remember, they are exercising a right: to walk about the world without undo interference from other people (and their pets and other things).

After all, it is no different with riding your bike. When I come barrelling down a trail and meet a person walking (up, down, sideways, sleeping, standing, etc.), regardless of the rules of trail use, it is my responsibility to have control over myself and my bike. If that person is standing on the trail, breaking trail ettiquette, looking up at me like an idiot, it is still me who must protect him from being mowed down by me. If I am not in enough control and hit him, the fault is all mine. My trail rights are trumped by his human rights. Its actually straightforward.

Sept. 11, 2015, 12:24 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
Burnaby Mountain 2015

Thanks for your comments . . .
-BMBA

I mostly haven't attended organized trail days for years. I have been aware of your efforts though . . . but unaware of your low turnouts. These kinds of things don't usually work for me so I keep my end up when I can on my own. I will make an extra effort to come out to your October day. It would be good to meet whoever there is to meet. We might even find a way for me to contribute something.

I brought the BMBA up out of my own interest, but also to see what interest/questions/involvements others may have or want. I might think things are working themselves out pretty well, without organized effort, but I also think a good active trail association could make things better.

Sept. 10, 2015, 4:39 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 7, 2006
Encountering dogs while riding

Now that I have gotten going, here are some more thoughts along with a tragic story.

Ultimately this is a safety and spatial integrity issue – and a human-animal issue. It doesn’t matter if dogs are friendly, aggressive, big, small, cute or whatever else. They are not in the same category as people. Dogs are not anyone’s children. I know that feeling is out there. I can also understand it. But, it’s ridiculous when it comes to violating another person’s integrity or safety. If your child attacks my child, any adult would intervene with the aim to separate them and stop it. If I reacted by kicking your kid in the head, not only am I sick in some way, but I would rightfully be charged criminally. However, if your dog attacks my child, I will not worry about your dog when I intervene. And if the attack is viscous, I will not hesitate to kick your dog’s head off (so to speak). I would then call the police and try to have you charged criminally.

While I’m at it, let’s look at another myth. This one is based on a difference between a dog’s owner and everyone else. The owner operates with their close knowledge of their dog. The rest have to navigate a world of many dogs, almost all of which are completely unknown to them. The owner knows their dog. They know it is friendly and just wants to jump on you to say hi. They know it is not aggressive, so even if it has a mean bark they feel it’s enough to tell you “it’s OK, she never bites,” or some version thereof. There are two problems with this. First, the stranger is asked to “stand down” and be OK with the dog’s behavior. It should be the other way around. Secondly, a dog’s character and history are no different than that of any other being; they are very good predictors of future behavior, but they are not foolproof. When it comes to aggression, we need to err on the side of caution.

Here’s what I mean. Years ago, I was arriving home with my beautiful 4 year old boy on a nice summer day. He stood beside our vehicle while I reached in the back to get some things. Before I could register anything, a nice dog from down the block was on top of my boy chewing on my kid’s face. I kicked the dog in the chest and it went flying. I dropped to attend to my kid, while my neighbour rushed up, grabbed the dog’s collar and started yelling at me. She said my kick was too much, that her dog was friendly and had never bitten anyone before. She stopped though when she got a look at my boy, blood everywhere, who was missing some of his face and eye. And his (and my) sanity. So, ambulance and fire truck, hospital, surgery, trauma, recovery, and so on. He almost lost his eye and has a ridiculous scar which two bouts of plastic surgery have repaired only some. Closing the circle, since then, he has had a pretty serious dog phobia which we have been working on for 14 years.

So, no, your dog is not a kid. And, it is irrelevant what you know about your dog. The odds are very high you are correct – but those odds do not make a certainty. Every dog who has bitten a person did so for a first time. That’s the only way it can be. So, respect needs to be shifted off of the dogs and on to the people. It’s simple, but I will repeat myself: you should employ whatever means you need to, to keep your dog under your control, out of other people’s personal space, unless invited otherwise.

As for phobias, they are difficult partly because by not being rational, they are plenty odd. My son had nightmares for years, he almost jumped out of his skin at the sight or sound of a dog, raccoons didn’t go down too well either, BUT, he found incredible comfort, in all places, with our own dog. That’s right, I am a dog owner and have loved dogs since my childhood. Our dog passed, and thanks to my neighbour, I will never be able to own one again.

115 posts found

Forum jump: